Almost from the moment it was revealed, Star Fox Zero has endured the kind of scrutiny that first-party Nintendo releases are rarely subjected to. From Time's botched announcement during E3 2014 to the news that external help was being used and the game would miss its proposed 2015 release window, Fox McCloud's long-awaited comeback has faced a wall of skepticism focused mainly on the divisive control system which uses the Wii U GamePad's screen and motion controls to full effect. The end result of this sorry narrative should be a game which crash-dives under stern critical analysis, but mercifully that isn't the case; while Star Fox Zero certainly isn't without its faults, it's still the kind of rousing space adventure that McCloud and his band of anthropomorphic allies can be proud of.

In terms of story, Star Fox Zero is essentially a retread of Star Fox 64 - which, in turn, was effectively Star Fox all over again. One-time scientific genius Andross has gone rogue, amassing a fleet of hostile craft and threatening the stability of the prosperous Lylat system. The military forces of Corneria enlist the mercenary Star Fox team to render assistance, with the ultimate goal being to take the battle to Andross' base of operations and bring down the tempestuous tyrant once and for all.

The manner in which you progress through the game in a first run is initially slightly different, as only some paths are available as the game applies its narrative and introduces to you (in the process unlocking) different vehicle types. After an initial clearance it's then reassuringly familiar; it's possible to take multiple paths to the end and branching points exist on each level which grant access to alternative routes, with some sequences triggering to shake up stages and reveal previously unseen exits and events. Take the most obvious path and you'll encounter the same route every time; to fully explore everything the game has to offer you'll have to keep a keen eye on telltale signs which indicate a different path or fulfil certain objectives; to achieve this you can even tackle stages in any order you want, mastering them and seeking out their secrets.

For all of the fuss that was made over Star Fox Zero's control system, it's striking just how similar things are to the N64 classic which provides so much inspiration. The left analogue stick controls your crosshairs and the direction of your Arwing, while the second stick is in charge of boosting, braking, banking and those all-important barrell rolls - the latter executed by double-tapping left or right. Using a combination of the analogue sticks it's possible to pull off somersaults and U-turns - essential moves during dogfights - but these are mapped to the X and B buttons as well. The Y button allows you to re-center the crosshairs should they drift off-target when using motion controls, the R shoulder button (or pushing down the right-hand analog stick) deploys your bomb and the A button triggers the Arwing's newfangled Walker transformation. ZR controls your main weapon, while ZL locks your view onto the nearest target, or your main objective.

At all times, the GamePad screen displays a cockpit view of the action. While it's possible to aim the old-fashioned way - using the crosshairs displayed on the TV's third-person view - the game continually prods you to gaze down at the GamePad for additional accuracy; in fact, there are several points where it is absolutely imperative that you use the cockpit view for precision aiming. Herein lies Star Fox Zero's biggest challenge, not only to the player but to its chances of commercial and critical success - there's no denying that the setup takes a lot of getting used to, and this is without a shadow of a doubt the reason why the title has endured such a bumpy ride to retail.

The first time you play through Star Fox Zero, you will inevitably curse the controls. They seem to present an almost insurmountable obstacle when it comes to enjoying the game, and at certain points - the final boss battle in particular - you may even be close to giving up entirely. However, as those opening hours slip by (like Star Fox 64, you can "finish" Star Fox Zero in the space of an evening) and you become accustomed to the foibles of the controls, it just clicks. Suddenly, it's second-nature to glance down at that GamePad screen for a second or two as you drift alongside an enemy battlecruiser, angling your fire to take out a series of fidgeting gun emplacements, or holding the controller almost horizontally as you fly over spider-like robots whose weak spot can only be targeted effectively from directly above.

Like all the best games - and many of Nintendo's in particular - Star Fox Zero gives you the tools and then presents you with a series of challenges which test your understanding of them. There's a definite design language at play here; while the interface might seem initially daunting, each new encounter gradually reinforces the core mechanics. On Corneria the motion-controlled targeting is introduced gently by placing certain enemies slightly out of reach of your standard laser fire, setting you up for the later levels which call for more precise GamePad aiming.

It's worth dwelling on the importance of the ZL "target view", which snaps the view to your target. This is only employed when flying in all-range mode, and becomes an absolutely essential feature - it's the equivalent of having a Virtual Reality headset on and being able to glance over your shoulder to instantly get your bearings. During Star Fox Zero's intense dogfighting sections against the insidious Star Wolf outfit, it's imperative that you keep track of where the enemy is at all times - largely because you have multiple aggressors attempting to get behind your Arwing. Combining the targeting camera with evasive manoeuvres and GamePad aiming creates the kind of exhilarating ship-to-ship combat that we haven't experienced since the days of X-Wing and Wing Commander on the PC, way back in the early '90s. It's also a natural progression from the good work seen in the N64 outing.

The learning curve of Star Fox Zero's control system has been compared to another Wii U title, Splatoon. The motion controls in that game caused quite a bit of consternation among some players at launch, and speaking from experience we can say that it wasn't until we were a few hours in that it really clicked, and now we simply can't imagine playing Splatoon without motion aiming enabled. Star Fox Zero is the same kind of experience, but the fact that you're having to actually look at the GamePad to aim is a key difference; in Splatoon, you were effectively using the motion controls as a third analogue input while maintaining a rocksteady gaze on the main TV screen, but here you have to constantly switch your eyes from the main TV to the pad, which is undoubtedly jarring to begin with. It's possible to toggle the view between the screens by pressing the minus button, and we found having the cockpit perspective on the main TV was actually incredibly beneficial in certain situations - thereby achieving the kind of setup seen in Splatoon.

Of course, McCloud isn't always dogfighting in his trusty Arwing. At certain points you'll get the opportunity to pilot another craft, as well as exploit the Arwing's funky new "Walker" transformation mode which morphs it into chicken-like robot capable of exploring nooks and crannies, as well as landing on pretty much any surface. Finding creative ways to use the Walker is all part of the appeal; why go to the trouble of trying to blow up a deadly missile when you can just land on it and take out its weak spots on-foot? The Landmaster tank can roll to avoid fire and float on low-power jets, while the Gyrowing - an all-new addition to the Star Fox arsenal - offers an interesting mix of air and land options.

No doubt inspired by the current trend for remote-controlled drones, it's a low-speed option ideal for exploring more confined spaces and can deploy a tiny robot which can be used to enter tiny passageways and hack computer terminals. One level in the game makes extensive use of the Gyrowing and its robotic companion, which is a nice change of pace but ultimately feels a little too pedestrian when compared to the intense Arwing-based combat on which the franchise has been built. Thankfully, by limiting the Gyrowing's screen time the designers have nearly avoided the issue of its outstaying its welcome.

As we've already mentioned, it's possible to play through Star Fox Zero within a day of getting it, although we will say that the additional challenge of mastering those controls does make it slightly less of a cake walk than the N64 version. However, just as was the case with the original Star Fox and its 1997 sequel, laying your eyes on the end credits is only part of the experience. Locating all of the possible stage pathways and visiting each and every one of the game's many planets, space stations and battle fleets is not a task that one enters into lightly; there's also the added challenge of collecting medals in each level, and obtaining these isn't as straightforward as you might expect.

In addition to the main campaign - and perhaps as a reaction to concerns over the controls - a surprisingly robust training mode has been included which not only allows rookies to get to grips with how each vehicle performs, but also presents fun little challenges to test and expand your skills. All of the main modes of transportation are featured, including the training-exclusive Roadmaster, an all-terrain vehicle which is capable of pulling off some impressive Ridge Racer-style powerslides.

With such an excellent dogfighting component it's a real shame that Nintendo wasn't able to replicate the competitive multiplayer mode seen in Star Fox 64 - online battles would have been glorious - but it hasn't totally ignored those who like to play together. A local co-op mode allows one player to steer the Arwing and shoot a rather weedy (and non-upgradable) laser while the other is in charge of the main blasters via the GamePad, which have a lot more scope for precise aiming. It's an interesting distraction from the main game and illustrates just how effective the motion controls can be when used correctly, but it feels curiously lacking and is - in truth - little more than an amusing novelty.

While we're on the topic of amusing novelties, amiibo support was confirmed a while ago and if you've got the Fox McCloud and Falco figures from the Super Smash Bros. range already stashed away, then you're in luck. Fox unlocks a "retro" Arwing based on the ship from the cancelled Star Fox 2 - it lacks a lock-on laser but comes complete with the Walker transformation which originated in that ill-fated SNES title - while Falco awards the player with a sleek black Arwing that is capable of locking onto two enemies simultaneously but is saddled with less resilient than the standard ship. The much-discussed "invincible" Arwing isn't hidden behind an amiibo unlock, however - in the tradition of the "Super Guide" from past Nintendo releases it is bestowed should the player fail a certain level repeatedly.

Nintendo has never made any secret of the fact that Star Fox Zero takes the N64 game as its visual reference point; remember the CGI renders used in 1997 to promote that particular game? That's basically what this Wii U title looks like; ship and level designs have been carried over to such an extent that you have to ponder if Nintendo ever considered simply renaming it "Star Fox 64 HD". While hardcore fans have been clamouring for a proper follow-up to the N64 release for years, it's hard not to be slightly disappointed by elements of Star Fox Zero's graphical package. It has the basics nailed down - mostly consistent 60fps action, large environments and meaty explosions - but some of the enemy models are incredibly simplistic and the levels are, by and large, lacking in detail. It's by no means an ugly game, but by adhering to the N64 visual template so rigidly Star Fox Zero denies itself the opportunity to stun in terms of pure spectacle. While it might not sizzle your eyeballs in the same way the N64 version did back in the late '90s, the fact that it is such a close match to that game will be enough for many fans, however.

The audio portion of the game is a very similar story; much of the dialogue from the N64 game has been retained, while the music has been beefed up without losing that classic "Star Fox" feel. The dialogue is piped through the GamePad's speakers, and a "3D" effect does an alarmingly convincing job of telling you which direction chatter is coming from. With so much audio coming from the GamePad we found it quite hard to balance the volume with the TV sound, but once you find that sweet spot it's plain sailing.

Conclusion

Star Fox Zero may have experienced a rather turbulant flight to market but the end result has been well worth the wait, especially if you're a fan of the N64 instalment - and there can be few Star Fox fans out there who aren't. In terms of pure mechanics, content and structure it's a close match for the 1997 release, following the same non-linear branching pathways and packing each level with bonuses to collect and secrets to discover. The additions made to the Wii U title are generous, with the Walker, enhanced Landmaster and Gyrowing each bringing with them different tactics, strengths and gameplay possibilities. The only issue is that while these alternative modes of transport are fun to use in short bursts, the Arwing is much more fun to pilot - especially when you're dashing through enemy armadas or engaging in thrilling dogfights using the game's all-range mode.

Visually, Star Fox Zero is plain rather than jaw-dropping - when set against the likes of the Wii U's best-looking titles, such as Bayonetta 2 or Mario Kart 8, it looks a bit ordinary - but the (mostly) 60fps performance makes all the difference, and it's important to remember that the Wii U is having to render not one but two perspectives simultaneously thanks to the GamePad's cockpit view. The sacrifice of graphical detail is therefore easier to stomach, and it's not as if Star Fox Zero can be branded ugly - "sparse" is a better description.

Once you've mastered the controls then you're faced with an outing which is easily on-par with the excellent N64 entry from which it draws so much inspiration - and that should be music to the ears of seasoned Lylat veterans. While some may mark Star Fox Zero down because of its initially obtuse interface, we feel that with perseverance it's possible to become totally attuned to the controls, thereby removing this as a legitimate concern. More pressing is the fact that the additional vehicles feel like they get in the way - a stronger focus on the Arwing segments would have been preferable, and would have made the experience far more consistent in terms of excitement. This grumble aside, Star Fox Zero is a solid entry in one of Nintendo's most underused franchises, and - if the forthcoming Zelda does indeed straddle the generational divide and launch on both Wii U and NX - arguably the last great Wii U exclusive.

Damien has over a decade of professional writing experience under his belt, as well as a repulsively hairy belly. Rumours that he turned down a role in The Hobbit to work on Nintendo Life are, to the best of our knowledge, completely and utterly unfounded.

Sounds like a pretty good write up and can't wait to play it. The "tracking" view interests me as that is the view I used to use during my early flightsim days when dogfighting in the Jane's Combat Simulations series.

I am surprised at the rather brief talk about multiplayer, or lack thereof with regards to many modes. However, since we all know the Wii U is on its way out, putting in the resources and funding into a game mode that would generally not last for a console approaching its end makes a pretty sound business case.

Could a director's cut edition with full online multiplayer make its way onto the NX? We can only wonder I guess.

Glad I switched my pre order. An 8 out of 10 is by no means bad, I enjoy many 8 out of 10 games. It just seems like there is a lack of content to make it worth 60 dollars. And no, Guard doesn't interest me.

The review reads as though you are having to justify a catalogue of errors, mistakes or bad judgements in order to give the game an 8.

If graphics have to be sacrificed in order to give the game an awkward and steep learning curve control system, then the game designers got it wrong. It explains why it was delayed, it just was not good enough for a planned released.

Also, here's what I said on IGN's review, and obviously my view is still the same in here too:

"7.5 on Wii U [8 for Nintendo Life]—but if this were on any of the other two consoles I think it would have scored lower, because the expectations for a much higher standard of presentation and graphics is actually present on those systems, especially from core franchises, and those clunky and awkward controls would have been judged far more harshly also.

I personally think Wii U owners are letting Nintendo get away with a lot of undercooked stuff, and Nintendo gamer's standards for quality have seriously dropped in the last couple of generations too imo. There used to be a time when Nintendo gamers basically expected Nintendo to put out the best games on any system (and that's from the presentation and graphics to the controls and gameplay). Now they'll settle for stuff that barely would have excited Xbox 360 and PS3 owners last-gen." - Me

@Kirk "It's a more objective source than any single review, and especially one on a Nintendo fan site, obviously". Yeah, I could not have said it better.

@Vee_Flames You are getting it wrong. Metacritic is not only a score average, it's a compilation of reviews (including Nintendo Life's), you can read all the quotes and all the reviews, as long as you can read. What's wrong with that? Should we read Nintendo Life's reviews only?

@Xenocity They REALLY haven't. Star Fox on SNES was basically universally praised and critically acclaimed, in every area of the game design from the presentation and graphics to the controls and gameplay.

THIS is the kind of review and scoring I want to see from a Star Fox game in 2016:

And, personally, I don't really rate any Star Fox games after the seminal original. They've been decent–good and that's about it imo—nothing even remotely close to being as mind blowing and truly epic as the original was for its time.

@VanillaLake And when did I say that Metacritic was it's own score and not the average of the scores of other games? And yeah, you are free to read other reviews. Did I restrict anyone? With the people posting about Metacritic here it's like they're saying "Well Nlife, you gave it an 8 but the average score is about 6-7... so maybe the game is a tad worse than you're saying it is Oh, I don't know.

This is the exact score I expected for this game and I am not surprised at all at the problems with the game because it was pretty clear that after all of the complaints about the graphics and controls there was not much else they could do other than changing the control scheme entirely. Would that have resulted in a better game? Perhaps but this is what we are given and I have to say that I like what I see!

@Project_Dolphin Again, Metracritic is about as objective a scoring system are you're going to see for any game in this day and age, precisely because it takes multiple reviews into account rather than just one, which may or may not be biased one way or another.

By the time all the scores average out on a site like Metacritic you can get a decent idea of where a game is at. And, yes, sometimes it can be a little skewed, if something has happened in the media that's caused some unusual and extreme reaction to a particular game (like it got caught up in Gamergate or something like that), but overall it's a pretty decent way to get an idea of how good or bad a game is in general.

I personally tend to read a few reviews on the sites I like, and then I go to sites like Metacritic and GameRankings and see how it all averaged out too. I think that's a good way to go about figuring out where a game generally sits of the scale of good–bad.

@Kirk #27 I agree. I'm not so worried about graphics, but lowering graphics and still having significant framerate drops is bad. It does seem like the quality expectation from nintendo has dropped quite a lot.

also to add to #34, starfox 64 is sitting at 88 meta score, so I agree they didn't get mixed reviews. Well before nintendo started mucking up the game.

@Project_Dolphin I'd argue NL is a bit off it's rocker too. I mean it reads like a list of problems. The controls are so bad you'll want to quit the game, and the graphics are bad and it still has framerate drops, and no multiplayer, but still 8/10. Have are standards fallen so far?

@KirkNo Star Fox on SNES wasn't universally praised. Plenty of reviewers were unhappy with kiddy presentation and having talking animals.

Anyways in today's market on rail shooters won't get high review scores, because frankly they aren't liked for what they are.

Gamers have never taken to on rail shooters because they see them as inferior to other types of games. They are also seen as having inferior graphics.

You could have Sony or EA make graphical showcase of an on-rail shooter, and it would have polarizing reviews across the board about the awful graphics, linear gameplay, and being too focused on on rails gameplay and vehicles.

On rails is just a niche genre and always will be, especially if your on-rails game features animals and colorful graphics.

@KirkActually Metacritic is weighted like Gamerankings. Certain publication and sites are given more importance in formulating the score than others. There is also talk of companies buying better weights for their reviews.

NintendoLife are one of the most fair and thorough reviewers of games, and they frequently give low scores when deserved.

Clearly you are here posting out of ignorance with an agenda. If you don't like the number, why not READ THE REVIEW. It's quite detailed and covers the positives and negatives and explains why the score was given.

@Project_Dolphin A group of media reviewers—and, see the little bit to the side . . . where it also [eventually] lists gamer reviews for every game too. . . .

That's how these things work: They collect a whole lot of reviews, some good and others bad (some extreme in one direction of the other and some just pretty balanced and fair), and they average them all out so the outliers can generally be ignored.

That's how you go about finding what are generally average and objective scores of whatever (games in this case)

Gameranking has the only collection of reviews score lasting from 1993, though you can't read them due to expiration of links.

Gameranking holds the original Star Fox at 88%, which means it's good and has flaws (based on 7 reviews) If was it was 90% or higher it would mean the game is great with AAA production values (this is how gaming reviews have been since the 90s).

Actually it's Metascore is now at 72 as well and a lot of green scores continue to roll in. In fact get rid of that Giant Bomb review and it would probably break 75. I do use metacritic occasionally but more for a general guide and to find actual reviews to read. Some reviews Hold more sway with me depending on the game. For example, I would look towards a site like RPGamer or RPGFan for a reliable review on a niche JRPG like Bravely Second or Stella Glow rather than say Gamespot.

The game was always going to polarise reviewers because of its control scheme; it would very much be hit and miss. Skyward Sword was like this. Some friends of mine hated it or even refused to touch it because of the controls whilst others loved it. I was kind of in the middle but leaning more towards a positive feel.

Like 95% of the time I will take the risk and give this game a shot before making judgement. I'll probably treat it like a flightsim and give myself time to get used to it.

@Xenocity Then use OpenCritic—it's basically the same difference (I just picked Metacritic because it's the one that pops to mind)—and Star Fox is currently sitting at a 72.

So, as I said before, "Let's see how it all averages out. . . ."

I'm still pretty sure the original would have averaged out a WAY higher than a 72 though, had OpenCritic existed back then, and I want a new Star Fox game that is basically Star Fox SNES' equal in 2016.

@Project_Dolphin What exactly is incorrect about what I said? Does this review not contain a list of flaws but still say the game is an 8/10. I mean the review literally contains this statement: "The first time you play through Star Fox Zero, you will inevitably curse the controls. They seem to present an almost insurmountable obstacle when it comes to enjoying the game, and at certain points - the final boss battle in particular - you may even be close to giving up entirely."

A game I'm going to be cursing and want to quit is 8/10? This is one of the first reviews from NL that I felt the score was very much inflated compared to the text of the review. I mean seriously think about it the summary is "this is a low graphic, poor frame rate rehash of starfox 64. It has audio issues, and even stripes a lot of dialog right out of 64. You'll curse the controls for a while and it lacks features from previous entries" That's just an inflated review score.

@Action51 That's not the point. The point is that Metacritic and Gamerankings are a LIST of reviews and multiple scores that are put together. You can read the score average, the quotes AND the whole reviews. It will ALWAYS be more reliable than ONE review. So why do you call us Evangelists? I think the "Evangelists" are the people that are blind and only see ONE thing.

I use capital letters because some people seem to be missing the point: 40 reviews > 1 review.

On Gamerankings, Star Fox Zero is 71.69% and on Metacritic it is 72 now.

"Like all the best games - and many of Nintendo's in particular - Star Fox Zero gives you the tools and then presents you with a series of challenges which test your understanding of them. There's a definite design language at play here; while the interface might seem initially daunting, each new encounter gradually reinforces the core mechanics."

This is a great summation of the Nintendo approach to gaming, and I think the reason their games in the last few generations can be so divisive. A lot of modern gamers want games they basically already know how to play, and they want to use the familiar controls to experience a new story/cool graphics/whatever the game's internal hook happens to be. That's a perfectly normal way to think, but it's going to frustrate you when you play Nintendo games, because their designers don't think that way.

For my part, I have always really enjoyed Nintendo's approach to game design in which they embed a learning curve into the game's control scheme and teach the player by doing. So the idea here was not "let's make The Force Awakens but with forest animals," it was, "let's use the world of Star Fox 64 to explore a new way to control ship flying games." I'm fine with that, and will eventually pick up this game.

The lack of online multiplayer is the only real disappointment for me here.

@Action51 Not misrepresenting anything. You complained about his comment on Nintendo's sale prices when that largely reflects reality.

I mean, carry on being emotional and calling everyone a troll if you like, but there was nothing wrong with that observation of his. Nintendo's sales almost always suck. That's not "trolling," that's reality.

I also agree that this site tends to inflate the score a bit when it comes to first-party games. I don't know if that means this game "sucks," but it certainly doesn't sound like it's worth paying full price for.

I'm more concerned with the substance of the review than the score, though. You want to know why I said "Ouch!" and that I'm skipping out on this?

1) Reviews, including ones from sites like this that tend to always give Nintendo games the benefit of the doubt, talk about how infuriating and unmanagable the controls are at first. I understand that after replaying it people become more accustomed to them, but that's true of almost any control scheme.

2) Game seems to have very few new ideas, to the point where reviews on Nintendo fan sites are jokingly referring to it as "Star Fox 64 HD." I love SF64, but I already own it, and don't need to buy a $60 remake with slightly better graphics

3) Game looks bad for a AAA modern gen title and lacks any sense of spectacle.

@VanillaLake "40 reviews > 1 review." This is only true if the question you are trying to answer is "What do most reviewers think of this game?" Reviews are subjective, so one review from a reviewer who shares my gaming sensibilities is infinitely better than 39 from gamerbros who ran through the campaign once before returning to a Destiny raid.

I don't say this to argue that Metacritic has no value, or that NintendoLife is the only review worth reading. I'm just noting that your premise is only the correct if you are assuming a particular question.

I clearly state that you should find a couple (not one) of trusted reviewers and READ the reviews.

The problem with Metacritic is the same problem with the 1080p fetishists who got games that ran at terrible framerates with low quality lighting because they whined about some number on the internets.

Now, everytime a game starts getting reviews, people start treating metacritic like it's gospel and that the entire game can be summed up in one easy number.

I can think of several games that get hyped and achieve high metacritic scores that I don't like, and several that got mediocre scores that I loved.

Example: On PC I own the Witcher 2 and Two Worlds 2.

According to Metacritic, Two Worlds 2 gets a 76 and The Witcher 2 got an 88...now I loved Two Worlds 2, and found it to be an under-rated gem, while I got bored and found The Witcher 2 to be everything I hate about modern western "RPGs" rolled into one package complete with awkwardly gratuitous sex scenes and nerd empowerment.

Now finally...my BIGGEST problem with metacritic, is how people use it like a bludgeon when it reinforces their pre-conceived notions and agenda.

Looking forward to friday despite no off tv play with standard controls (unfortunately, most of my wii u plytime is when the tv is occupied). Should be good fun and a nice change of pace from dark souls 3. Still disappointing from a visual perpective, sparse looking environments are extremely disappointing especially with consoles today. Still, if it plays like 64, i'll be happy..

Thanks for the review. I can't wait to play this graphically "sparse" game with the "obtuse" controls. I'm looking forward to attempting to master a control scheme that actually different than other games I've played before. AHH, no, not a different control scheme! I hate different things! Get off my lawn!

The fact that you have to play a Gyrocopter level - with gyro-controls no less - each run, is a real turn-off =/ It's kind annoying that Nintendo proved unwilling to focus on bringing the core experience of Star Fox/64 to a new generation, with some additional bells and whistles ofcourse, like alternative controls schemes, improved GFX, online dog-fighting(/co-op) and things like that.
Maybe that would have spelled stagnation, and would have been less than innovative, but jesus christ, it was a good formula, and it's been almost two friggin decades ... what so bad about a repeat performance of a classic piece after what's going on a generation Oo

@cleveland124 I think that's a fair point, but even Wii Sports was more about exploring new methods of control than creating a realistic sports sim. The controls just happened to be really intuitive.

@VanillaLake NO. You didn't read what I wrote. People read reviews to get information to answer a question. For me, that question is "Will I like this game?" For me, the answer to that is more likely to be found in a NintendoLife review than an aggregation of disparate reviews that weights reviews from larger outlets that generally don't share my gaming sensibilities.

Metacritic is there to answer the question, "What do most reviewers think of this game?" That is all.

I think you are trying to answer the question "Is this game good?" I personally don't think that is a useful question, since the question is subjective and different people have different views of what constitutes a "good" game.

Polygon's Arthur Gies refuses to complete the game because it's too boring and has motion controls in it. He states the levels are too simple and too focused on using vehicles instead of focusing on being adventurous. He wishes the game like other Star Fox games weren't designed around vehicles.

Like many Miyamoto games, in a few years, this game will be looked at as a landmark in design.

Miyamoto himself, has stated that it would take the average gamer, maybe 2 hours to become familiar with the controls, and then get better and better, the more you play.

I wonder how many reviewrs actually spent more than an hour or so before submitting their reviews? ANY reviewer worth their salt knows, STAR FOX games have always been on-rail shooters, and this one has been in tne media for quite a while now, and we ALL know/knew, it was taking the same course. However, these so called EXPERT reviewers, are astonished and appalled that the game IS an on-rail shooter.

This game simply could not have been done on any of the other two systems, because of the Game Pad. Unless you think the Vita could have done it....lol. Many reviewers in general, simply have a hate toward Nintendo, and nothing is going to change their mind.

At the end of the day, it is down to each individual, if they like or dislike the game. I personally will be downloading the game, and Project GUARD come midnight Thursday.

@Project_Dolphin You can go to Metacritic AND read the 82 Street Fighter V reviews and decide on your own. Plus, Street Fighter V was reviewed before most of its content was released, so you better check what content has been released after that.

@earthboundlink Most people know that Nintendo Life is generous when reviewing games of a Nintendo IP.

other sites are going even lower on their scores. If anything I hope that this wakes up Nintendo and they realize they can't goof around with IP like this. I'm not one to tell Miyamoto what to do but I do get the feeling the guy needs to go back and ask "what made StarFox so much fun back in the 90s and how can we continue that?" instead of "how can I explore new ways to control the characters?". Not in a top tier IP sir.

@Action51 it's always amusing listening to people argue about the quality of games based on meta average score! I think SFZ will be like W101, in the sense that it will be received ok on release but as more and more time is spent with it the better it will get. Well, i'm hoping so anyway...

@OneBagTravel that's been a problem with miyamoto for a while. Remember he said the reason we don't have a new f-zero is that he can't find a way to ruin the controls. I would love nothing more than seeing nintendo return to a time when they asked what makes a game fun and exciting, not how can we shove an unintuitive and curse inducing control scheme.

People get mad when others "make up their minds" about a game upon seeing the first footage, yet with Nintendo in particular of late, it's so easy to see the lack of quality right from the start. I think most people could see this was yet another remake of the old Star Fox, and it's no big surprise to hear that's how it turned out.

@heyzeus002 Not based on meta scores but based on over 40 reviews. The score is secondary but gives you an idea, that's why Nintendo Life also uses it in the first place, right? So why is better Nintendo Life's score than 40 reviews' metascore?

They only play a portion of the games, more if the have the time, actually like the game, and/or getting physical bonuses from the publisher and developer.

They are also on deadlines, strict rules given to them on major games, especially from EA, Ubisoft, Activision, and Microsoft on how to review those games properly.

You have to be very careful at reviewing major games these days from major publishers, unless you want to get fired and/or blacklisted (it has happened a lot over the past decade).

Since Star Fox is a mid tier/AA/Mid budget game, you can get away with reviewing it as you see fit even for clicks.

Many reviewers/journalist purposely take shots at what they are reviewing to rile people up in order to get clicks. Especially when IGN went on about how they wished Splatoon was a different game in a different genre so they could like it better.

All these online sites revenues are driven by ads, visits and clicks. They are all making a nice profit over the Star Fox Zero review controversy this week.

Again I'm not defending or attacking this game or any media outlet.

Though Nintendo should have sent reviewers some special physical Star Fox merchandise and/or a wade of cash to the reviewers, they would have gotten a much higher score for this game.

It works for most Western publishers... [see the goodies and stuff Bethesda shipped with Fallout 4 review copies and what Microsoft sent to reviewers with Halo 5 review copies]

1. Oh and I assume that Uprising is the better game than Zero despite that game having two modes of gameplay and not really following the roots of Kid Icarus?

2. Umm.....who said this is a reskin of 64? The review only mentions that its INSPIRED from the original and adds more to it.Just because having the same plot and characters doesn't mean that it doesn't do anything new or for that matter, offer something different.

3.Who said anything about this game being AAA? Not every game requires pretty colors to enhance the game experience. I for one love playing Pitfall now and then.

4.Have you ever asked yourself, why the hell does every game require multiplayer modes and whatnot? Some games are just not meant to have multiplayer. Example? Fire Emblem. Infact, removing multiplayer simply will mean getting more of single player content. I will agree with you that IF Zero had no multiplayer mode and offered less content, then yeah, its justifiable. But the game looks like its best experienced for Single Player.

Look, I get you might not want the game but the reasons that you don't want to get it aren't very reasonable. Fire Emblem Fates censors content, does that make it less of a reason to get it?

@VanillaLake Yes, most people know NintendoLife is generous with Nintendo compared to other outlets, but so am I. Therefore, because I know NintendoLife shares my view of what makes a good game, I go there for the review that will focus on the things that most interest me.

The reason you can't seem to understand my point is that you seem to have this view that there is some perfectly objective "score" out there somewhere that perfectly encapsulates the game's quality. I don't believe that is a real thing, and even if it were, it doesn't seem to fit with my view of what makes games good, so it's useless to me.

@Xenocity That is true, I think the graphics limitations and the fact that it's a "remake" of the old story made it a little underwhelming. It's a shame we couldn't have a game like this back in the Gamecube days (with a sequel story) before people got skeptical about the series. I also think it's a shame that everybody complains about the on-rails levels.

@SocarBut to be fair Fates had huge amount of controversy that spilled into the mainstream media boosting the profile of Fates way beyond any game in the franchise in the West. So people bought the game to see what it was all about.

@Socar oh come on that has to be a joke.2. nintendo said it's a rehash of 64.

3. they're charging new AAA price for the game, so um nintendo did.

4. starfox since 64 has had multiplayer, and people really wanted to be able to take assault's multiplayer online. But you're right it's better if nintendo just strips out existing content from the game. I wonder if the reverse was true, nintendo removed all single player and made starfox multiplayer only if you'd say "not every game needs a single player mode".

@earthboundlink No, I don't think there is a perfect score, I think that 40 reviews are better than one. The score is not that important, I love some games that are below 70/100, I don't need a game to be perfect in order to like it.

How can you say that "Nintendo Life shares my view of what makes a good game" when there are more than one reviewer on Nintendo Life?

@BlueKnight07That is true. I can't remember the last time an on-rail game was universally accepted (score in the 90s.)

I mean if Bethesda can release Fallout 4 with tons of serious glitches and bugs and get top tier review scores, then anything is possible (88 on XO)Every Bethesda game has serious bugs and glitches at launch and never gets any flack for it.

I mean Halo: Master Chief Collection managed an 85 on Metacritic despite being a broken game at launch. Hell they haven't successfully fixed the online mode yet.

Maybe this "controversy" will push Star Fox Zero to sell more than 3M+ and match the original game in sales.

Anyways this game is going to be a love/hate game like Splatoon, Smash 4, Bloodborne, The Order, Devils Third (or should I say turd?) etc...

After reading many reviews I have realised that this game is not good enough for my money and my time. If Nintendo wants me (and all of us who feel the same) to think twice, they can release a demo, as easy as that. At least we would give it a go without feeling forced to spend €50.

@Xenocity I love the game. But the excuse that 89% is something for movies is like horrible. I mean, if a Sonic game released today had the same rating, I'd rather get it than wait for a score of 90% instead.

@Project_Dolphin no, i'm not wasting money supporting nintendo's bad practices. It's not my job to buy every piece of trash they put out at a premium price it's their job to sell me on games. Nintendo's quality has dropped drastically with the wiiU, I know they can do better and if they want me to buy their games they will have to. I have absolutely no problem becoming one of the tens of millions of gamers who has abandoned nintendo forever over the generations.

@VanillaLake firstly, i was joking dude. Secondly, i will make an exception and oblig on this occasion.You say to look at 40 reviews and not the scores but the scores are, in theory at least, a direct representation of the actual review text so in that regard, what you say doesn't make sense as the score is linked to the text and vice versa.You say lokk at 40 reviews assuming that the quantity is relevant, it's not really. I could get 20 reviews for the W101 that say it's not great but in my opinion it's the best game on wii u.You assume (wrongly i might add) that NL review score means more to me than other sites. They do not. I'm one of those old fools that doesn't really pay attention to scores preferring to actually read the text and watch gameplay vids to see if i would enjoy the mechanics of the game.Finally, you would do well to remember that these reviewers are like you, me and most people on this site. That is to say,we all like games, just because they write reviews do not make them have an 'experts' opinion so if 40, 60 or 100 sites say a game is rubbish it is just their OPINION. No different to you or i saying the same. In closing, don'tput too much stock in reviews, play it yourself see if YOU like something, iv'e lost count of the amount of great games i've played even thoughthe so called experts advised me not to play them...happy gaming dude

2. They said its a retelling not a rehash. That's like saying Tomb Raider reboot isn't a game of its own but just a reskin which isn't true at all.

3. This game has more fun than what Street Fighter V will ever have. What's your point? If you don't want to buy the game, how about just saying "I'll skip it...didn't reach my expectations" instead of trolling about it?

4. Games like Steeldiver subwars would actually be fine just being multiplayer instead adding single player. Heck, that's what Tri Force heroes was suppose to be.

Here is a lesion for people about how a review works. It is not about the number attached to the end of it as that is only a way for the reviewer to personally weigh it against a ton of other games and it is in no way able to reflect perfectly how you or they feel about a game. The point of a review is for you to read the thoughts of the person writing the review and see if this is the right game for you. Do not rely on Metacritic scores to decide on what you spend you money on because your taste could be very different from many other people. I mean there are people out there who hate Dark Souls and loved Devil's Third after all. Read the actual body of the review and do not weigh your entire decision on what the number is because if you do then quite frankly you are doomed to forever be following trends and never get to try the deeper cuts of a consoles library.

He very clearly has an agenda. This is the guy who complains ad nauseam about the graphics and frame-rate of Zero and argues that this should lower the review score significantly, but then goes on to give a 10/10 to Xenoblade Chronicles X. A game with a 30fps frame-rate, significant pop-in and a wonky camera.

On a serious note I really like Eurogamer's approach to review scores - i.e. none. Otherwise you end up debating 0.5 here and 0.25 there. Just read the review and decide for yourself. Reading this I think I'll be ok with the controls, it's been my main concern. I ordered the first print anyway, so that's a relief!

@Vandy In all fairness, SF Zero is a linear rail shooter, while XCX is a gigantic open-world RPG. Even I'm impressed they managed to optimize that game to run at a mostly solid 30 fps on the Wii U's hardware.

@Wexter Nobody is saying that, the words are harsh on this game almost everywhere. It's not about a score only but the TEXT as well.

@heyzeus002 I think you are the one not making much sense, the more you know about a game that you are not sure of, the better. The score is good to know, but that doesn't sell me on a game. Even THIS Nintendo Life review admits a lot of issues with THIS game in the TEXT.

@Yorumi Millions of Nintendo fans think the way you think, that's why Nintendo sales have dropped drastically over the years, the numbers are there. Nintendo is doing something wrong, yet Nintendo overly enthusiastic fans won't ever admit that, they'd die before admitting that Nintendo is wrong.

Even Super Mario Maker and Mario Kart 8 received an 88 on Metacritic, falling short of goodness.

People need to remember there is no bonus or incentive for reviewers to give Nintendo games and games on Nintendo systems good high scores.

Nintendo does not whine and dine the press like all other major publishers do with the gaming media and reviewers. Major publishers give them tons of free goodies, money and literally take them to 4 star restaurants for dinner. Even Microsoft has been known to take them to 4 star resorts.

Major gaming media outlets readership/viewership is majority Xbox and Playstation fans who are teens and grown men who don't want to hear about or play Nintendo stuff. They get tons of outrage and backlash from them, if they give Nintendo games high scores. This in turn leads to a drop in readership/viewership, which in turn leads into a drop of revenue, in turn a drop in profits.

Eurogamer always has to deal with people in their comment sections, forums and social media accounts accusing them of "giving into" Nintendo when ever they give Nintendo a good review. That's why their positive reviews on Nintendo products always make it clear they aren't getting anything from Nintendo and aren't catering to them.

@VanillaLake I'm not trying to be harsh on people. Just saying the TEXT is the most important part of the review and so many people ignore it for a number that can mean so many different things depending on what critic reviews what game. Whenever I hear Metacritic and Objective next to each other I just want to remind people that Metacritic is not even close to an objective way to gauge a games quality because those numbers are made with bias, so inherently the site is not objective.

@VanillaLakeActually two of the main reasons for Nintendo's drop in sales is literally:

1) They have a horrible stigma in the Western side of gaming been seen as being for kids, "casuals," and women.This has bled over to the mainstream in the West who also sees Nintendo as being made for kids (due to all the games having all the bright colors and lacking violence, while Microsoft and Sony systems are made for adults

We have all the numbers from the market researchers on it.

This is highly influenced by the Western Markets primarily shifting to violent, M-rated games, and AAA Blockbuster show stoppers. This is why NPD and the other Western sales trackers show mainly those games selling well on PS4, Xbox One, PS3 and Xbox 360.

2) Nintendo systems have gotten more expensive as time goes on and not many people are willing to spend more than $200 USD for a system that features bright colors and family friendly games.

These to primary factors have killed Nintendo's console sales like a brick, with Wii barely escaping the kiddy stigma in the beginning.

This has been surveyed and researched by all the major gaming companies and market researchers to hell and back.

Switching to an OS based platform like NX is, you will see the combined sales of handheld and console into one overarching market to the same way Android is one big market despite numerous form factors.

@Socar Don't be afraid, Nintendo will make a new Star Fox in the future, hopefully better.

@Wexter So then, again, erase Metacritic from the equation and tell me if it's not better to know what 40 reviewers think of a game than knowing what 1 reviewer thinks of a game... Even Damien, who has been hyping this game over the last weeks, admits that the game has its issues.

I expected drama in the comments but not to this degree. Clearly a divisive game, all the more surprising that the overwhelming majority of us haven't played the darn thing and in LOL honesty can't really develop a proper opinion. We can only base it on here say and others' opinions.

The more I think about, the more this game feels kind of like a shm'up. A relatively short game that's all about short, sharp playthroughs and chasing after that high score and occasional unlocks.

@VanillaLake I'm not saying the game does not have issues. I have yet to play the game so my personal opinion does not mean anything in this discussion yet. But what I'm saying is people are paying too much attention to a site's number rather than the actual content of those reviews. If you are to tell me that people only care about the text and do not ignore it for a number you sir are lying. I did not personally call you out sir so I'm sitting here wondering why you care so much why I say people should care less about a number than the content of the review?

http://n-europe.com/reviews/star-fox-zeroThey gave it a 9. The reviewer states it's a return to form for Star Fox. He claims it is just what he wanted in a Star Fox game, as in one that returns to Star Fox 64 roots and expands on it.

The only two cons they listed are: Not enough On Rails Only stages and Steep learning curve that many will struggle to overcome

You summed it up pretty well. It's utterly baffling to judge a game before you get a chance to play it.

The only time your argument has any credibility whatsoever is if you have actually played the game. I don't really trust critic reviews of games anymore. I've been burned by too many "masterpiece" 9/10 and 10/10 critic-rated games, only to have some of the most tedious, waste-of-money gaming experiences of my life.

Alternatively, I've defied some 6/10 and 6.5/10 critic reviews only to have the games end up as some of my favorites of all time.

This game is looking great, and I'm glad that I preordered it. The only downsides seem to be mediocre graphics and bad controls. If a game takes many hours to get used to the controls and there's no option to change them, then the controls are bad.

@Vandy I partially agree with you. However, when many of those reviews mention the same issues, it's a red flag.

@Wexter Okay sir, fair enough. I think scores are useful but then people should read the text if they are really interested in knowing what's good and what's bad about a game, and that's why Metacritic/Gamerankings/etc. comes handy, because you have access to lots of reviews on one click. On the other hand, reading one review only might be misleading.

I haven't said that the game is good or bad yet, what I said is that most reviews say it's not as good as it could be, there are lots of issues with performance and controls, which is quite an issue for a modern shooter that should run smoothly. There's also the suspicious fact that Nintendo is not releasing many demos lately.

The only "issue" that I have seemed to find the reviewers consistently complaining about is the fact that they have to learn a new control scheme. Something like that doesn't really hold weight with me.

And now something really "controversial", the "requirement" to get used to the controls before finally being able to fully enjoy he game reminds me of the Souls series of games.

I tried my best to get into their earlier titles by repeatedly "slamming me head" against the difficulty but gave up cos it wasn't fun and frankly what lay ahead didn't entice me enough to continue digital masochism.

Hopefully I have the patience and willingness to put some effort into this. On the positive side, it took a while but I eventually learnt to love Wiimote FPS games on the Wii & Wii U.

@VanillaLake That is perfectly fine. Metacritic can be a very powerful tool. And much like any tool it can be used properly and improperly. I have heard mixed things about this games controls, but I personally have never had a real problem with motion controls they come to me very intuitively. I have also heard reviews complain about the on-rails part of the game, but I miss on-rail shooters like Star Fox and Sin and Punishment. Based on what I have read is that the game will probably be one I really like. My point is people who only care about numbers will miss out on ton of gems. Games like NIER and Pandora's Tower will end up being ignored because of a number and it is bothersome to see that happen to potentially one of the best rail shooters we have had this way since Star Successor. My point is read the text very carefully and base your decision on what's best for you. Do not ignore bad reviews for only positive ones and reading a mixed review can be very useful. My rule of thumb is read two positive reviews, one mixed review and one negative review.

Again, that's garbage. Honestly, they mention "frame-rate dips" of one or two frames per second sometimes.

Maybe I'm just missing something, but I barely notice anything like that. And a brief millisecond hiccup will never legitimately disturb ANYONE'S gaming experience, no matter what they say. That's just the honest truth.

@VanillaLake how fid my post not make sense? I answered the points you raised to me.You seem to be in a running debate with a number of people on here so you may have mistaken me someone else. What i wrote was fairly simple and self explanatory.You mention review text of NL but i made no mention of their score or their review dude. I actually don't agree with scores, a review should be just that, a detailed text review with no sscore attached. I'm struggling to see why you claim im not making any sense. You replied to me about multiple reviews and i explained that quantity is not really relevant when it comes to subjective opinion.I never had an issue with checking multiple reviews for information gathering purposes so i have no idea why you're quoting excerpts from a review to me...

@Project_Dolphin Nintendo's issues are complex but what you're saying isn't entirely true. The 3ds is the first nintendo portable that has performed poorly and even at that it still did a pretty good job selling around 60mil+. And nintendo games do sell quite well on the system, so I don't think the amount of people who want nintendo games is as dire as the wiiU makes it seem.

It's too complex to point to one thing but people arn't seeing the value in a wiiU at this point.

@Vandy you do know DF has done an analysis on the game and it drops as much as 20 to 25 fps right? I believe they even said it's not even pushing 1080p pixels on top of that.

@CreamyDream the bias in favor of nintendo didn't used to be pronounced as much. I used to say the harshest critics are those who love something the most and NL typically reflected that. Several years ago you felt like if anything NL reviews were overly critical but in a good way. This review feels like it's awarding mercy points to the score and glossing over some pretty serious design flaws in the game.

I watched DF's video where they give their analysis of the frame-rate. In all of the dips to around the 40 level, I didn't notice any negative effects on the game-play and the draw distance was always superb.

Unless my vision is going, I didn't notice anything happening that would be a detriment to the gaming experience.

@heyzeus002 LOL you were the first one saying that expression, but never mind. Peace, man. I hope you enjoy the game.

@Kid_Sickarus I predicted 70 so 72 is very close, don't you think? I said 70 is mediocre in my book, do you know what mediocre means, right? Not very good or great; ordinary.

@Wexter Nice comment. I like reading a few positive, mixed and negative reviews when I don't have time to read them all. I totally agree with you now that I know exactly what you mean. Sincerely, I wish you that you enjoy Star Fox Zero much, I won't be able to try it if Nintendo does not release a demo, but I have Star Fox 3D on my New 3DS.

Pandora's Tower is a great game that I enjoyed more than Xenoblade Chronicles and The Last Story, so I know what you mean.

@VanillaLake yes, very close indeed. I am aware of the meaning of mediocre and I'll assume you're being patronising as you're feeling defensive given that half the comments in this thread appear to be debating you.

@Yorumi "the bias in favor of nintendo didn't used to be pronounced as much. I used to say the harshest critics are those who love something the most and NL typically reflected that. Several years ago you felt like if anything NL reviews were overly critical but in a good way. This review feels like it's awarding mercy points to the score and glossing over some pretty serious design flaws in the game".

I totally agree. I am also overly critical but in a good way, anyone that knows me know that, and that's what I expect of a good reviewer, too.

The fact that Nintendo Life and some fans (because I am a Nintendo fan, too) wear those rose tinted glasses does not make Nintendo any favour, in my honest opinion.

@heyzeus002 You can play off-TV if you really want. I believe the minus button swaps the screens between TV/Gamepad. So you can see the ship view on the Gamepad most of the time and switch to the cockpit when you need the precision with the minus button. Several people have even mentioned that they find swapping screens more appealing than looking at two screens for even just playing on the TV.

@VanillaLake what expression? If you actually want to discuss things then im all ears man. I never said the game is good or bad, i mentioned the crappy graphics, questionable controls and if its like 64 then i will probably like it. Guess ill find out on friday.Dont trivialise the discussion by being reductive though. I pointed out a contradiction in your opinion which made your point not make sense, so maybe you should look at that instead of saying peace out and whatnot making out as if ive said something nonsensical.

@Vandy you're so eager to engage in ad hominem attacks you arn't even bothering to read what I'm saying. So you know maybe you should be more careful lest you be made a fool. I said it drops as much as 20 to 25 fps. That would mean it drops from 60 to 35 to 40 fps.

You're on a crusade against me cause you can't handle a different opinion but I believe it's you who is the problem.

@Allspice Yeah, you're right, but mediocre is not bad, mediocre is ordinary, not very good or great. I can love a mediocre game as long as I love the genre and I love its strengths, if you know what I mean.

@VanillaLake its ok dude, and if ive said anything to upset you i apologise also. Just wanted to talk about star fox tbh but i guess prople get so roped in the fanboy stuff, no one talks about the bloody game in the end!

@Yorumi "I said it drops as much as much as 20 to 25 fps"When? Where did you get this? And because you said it doesn't make it true, hence there's LITERALLY no point in saying "That would mean it drops from 60 to 35 to 40 fps." In fact, doesn't that statement help what Vandy and I said earlier? What is the point?!

@Xenocity Can you take reviewers seriously even? I mean many can't even play games right and yet they review it because they are too dumb to play even Tactical RPG games.

The point is you guys should be happy that we finally got Star Fox after so long and not just one game, but two. Who knows what'll happen if the F-Zero game shows up and we get the same feedback as this.

If this game came earlier than now, it wouldn't get a lot of backlash as it would be on par with Uprising.

@Vee_Flames direct quote from #184 "you do know DF has done an analysis on the game and it drops as much as 20 to 25 fps right?"

That was in reply to vandy saying they only mention it drops 1 or 2 frames, when it doesn't it drops many more frames than that. It's from the digital foundry analysis which shows the framerate dropping as low as 35-40 fps at times and running in 720p.

@VanillaLake I get that, but he misrepresented the information from DF. The analysis video shows that SFZ frame rates drop to a minimum of 40 or so, not as low as 20 to 25. So I don't know where that came from...

No one here has played the game yet. For all I know, the game is terrible. For all the opposing know, the game is just as good as the review says it is.

Perhaps the controls are too difficult, but perhaps the reviewers who complain about them are just lazy hacks who don't have the patience to actually spend a bit of time learning the game and instead only care about cranking out their review to get that click revenue?

@Vee_Flames No again reread it, it drops BY 20 to 25 frames. A drop to 40 fps is a drop of 20 fps. I did not say it drops to 20 fps, vandy was just so absorbed in his vendetta against me he misrepresented what I posted.

@VanillaLake "Yeah, you're right, but mediocre is not bad, mediocre is ordinary, not very good or great. I can love a mediocre game as long as I love the genre and I love its strengths, if you know what I mean."

True. I just work on a slightly different scale because I really don't like the trend of 9s and 10s being given out like candy these days. 7s and even 6s shouldn't be considered an insult to the game. For example...I remember when one of the reviewers at GameSpot dared to give GTA V a 9/10. She was flamed really hard and gamers tried to get her fired for her criticisms of the game.

@Vee_Flames "I get that, but he misrepresented the information from DF. The analysis video shows that SFZ frame rates drop to a minimum of 40 or so, not as low as 20 to 25. So I don't know where that came from..."

No, @Yorumi said it drops 20 to 25fps, which is what the video showed (it drops from 60 to 40, a difference of 20fps). From what I saw though, it doesn't seem like it would be much of a problem during gameplay because even though there was slowdown, it wasn't chugging. It recovered pretty quickly. At least, that was how it looked during the footage they showed.

I wouldn't buy Mario Tennis Open for €20, but that's because I prefer the GameCube game anyway. Mario Tennis Open is not a bad game, it's just a bit... empty, shallow. It's up to you, it depends on how much you want to have a mario tennis on the go. There are also other tennis games available on 3DS much cheaper, but I can't help you about them because I haven't tried them.

@Oubie reagarding mario tennis, it is a really good tennis game, good mechanics buttheres no solo mode, mainly online so take that into account before buying. Dont know if people are still playing it anymore

@Vandy no see you didn't do that. It's revised now yes but I was replying to what was there. Funny that you havn't revised your other post were you misrepresented the amount the framerate drops. I'm not the one misrepresenting things here.

@heyzeus002 Oh okay, I was wondering about that yeah. I know the N64 version is way better but those graphics...I can't haha. 3DS version would look nice on my 3DS. But in the end: I want the best version.

@Oubie No. @Allspice You are right. Good point. The problem is that games scores are generally inflated. 7 should mean that the game is pretty good because it's 3 points over the bare pass, but the fact that the scores are inflated distorts that! :S@heyzeus002 No, no, I'm right this time, it's you.

@Oubie If you want the best version you want Mario Power Tennis for GameCube. I think GameCube games will be available on NX as downloads, so you can wait and see, if you don't have a GameCube any more.

It's a little disheartening the quality of games the Wii U is seeing in its last year of life. Mario Tennis, Amiibo Festival, and now Star Fox. If it wasn't for a port of Pokken (not my cup of tea, but I've heard it's solid) and TP remaster the Wii U's last good game would be Splatoon which released almost an entire year ago. Mario Maker I don't necessarily count as it's inherently designed as a community-driven game and the true barometer of Nitendo's ability of game design is with a game they designed to survive based on what they themselves created. Rather verbose, but basically I'm just saying the last game they made that they didn't depend on player additions to be good is nearly a year old now.

If the NX fails to come out this year, or the launch line up is a bunch of ports with no real "must-have," I'll have completely lost any hope of Nintendo knowing what they're doing. The 3ds has seen game quality and quantity slip since 2014 and the Wii U never has had a great year in all honesty. NX needs to deliver in spades.

It is rather obvious that this was a game that Nintendo desperately needed when the Wii U was first announced to show off the capabilities of the game pad. For unknown reasons we are only getting it as the Wii U's next to last, swan song. I don't know if there was problems or it just wasn't a priority, but its a shame they missed the window.

Speaking honestly, Star Fox was the first game I thought of when they announced the Wii U in 2011. If it was one of the first games with the system, perhaps we would have been a bit more forgiving, but we now have MK8, Xenoblade and Yoshi's Woolly World to compare it to. I understand why it looks the way it does, cause of the two screens, but I feel like Nintendo got the releases backwards. Coming out now; people just don't care about the game pad anymore and what's left is "gotta get used to it" controls, and sparse visuals.

The game might be good, but I'm not filled with that warm fuzzy feeling I usually get with Nintendo games.

The game feels like a launch or launch window game, please hear me out and don't kill me. It seems to me it's like a typical game to show off the experimental controls. Combine it with an, in all honesty, second tier but loved franchise and you have a nice 'hook' to introduce players to the GamePad and to revive a franchise. Instead it's one of Wii U's last exclusive title.

I really wish people would quit the drama over the score and enjoy the game for what it is, not for what it isn't. If you are a fan of the series then you definitely know what you will be getting with this game, and with the game being around six hours versus 64's one hour story mode I think it is safe to say that you will get more than your money's worth out if this game assuming you enjoy replaying levels trying to discover secrets, which is pretty much the core gameplay focus of the series. Why reviewers are criticising the game for being on rails is beyond me, since they would have known darn well that it would be if they had played either of the previous main entries in the series. I think the game looks great, but then I am not too picky when it comes to games seeing as I can find the good in all of them and still come away satisfied. This is a hobby, there's no reason to get all bent out of shape about a single game not being up to your standards.

Interestingly enough, I keep hearing around the web how Assault is considered a good game, but if we're to use Metacritic as the be-all end-all for a game's quality, then you might as well drop Assault and go play Zero.

@Discostew I consider Star Fox Adventures a great game and Star Fox 64 3D is quite good but very short.

@Oubie I haven't played those two! Actually, I have a huge back log because I have Wii U, new 3DS, PS4 and Xbox One. :S This is the first generation I have more than one home console, I only had Nintendo consoles up to this point.

@Kirk It might well deserve a 7.5 or 8. The game isn't broken. It does introduce at least some new elements. It's engaging to those who do admittedly get used to the controls. Those scores mean it's a serviceable game that adheres to expert development. As oppose to something like CV:LoS where the game was serviceable but had some real technical hang ups.

As a game: great score.As a good/great Nintendo IP? Now that's a different metric up for debate.

@VanillaLake OMG...all 3 consoles?! How do you keep up? Well, you can't haha. I'm stressing out with my 3DS/Wii U combo. But I do like to invest in eShop and Virtual Console games for both to keep me busy.

I think I'm going to enjoy this a lot... IF the controls don't ruin it for me. I ordered the first print edition - had to get it from Australia because all the British shops were out of stock and couldn't stand giving free money to eBay scaplers... I'm happy to wait til it turns up, but keen to play it.

Maybe its just because I am old, but I don't understand all the people complaining about the graphics - to me, in every preview video I've seen so far it looks stunning! Sure, the models aren't crazy high poly, but why do they need to be, these are angular, minimalist designs, and all the cooler and iconic because of it. The textures, shaders, effects, resolution and framerate look just great to these old eyes...

...and, though I am oldish, and predominantly game on the Wii U rather than ps4/xbone, I am more than aware of what "bleeding edge" graphics look like - my PC is an i7-6700K with 64gb ram, a pci-e SSD and a 12gb GTX Titan X with a lovely 4K monitor... I just think this game looks neat - can't think of a way I would have (stylistically) improved it...

I did wonder if @Xenocity was a wind-up for a while. But no I believe the prime examples here of fictional, tin foil-hat wearing conspiracy theory fantasy nonsense are actually serious.

We've got the full checklist here - Nintendo zealots claiming this review is gospel and all the others should be ignored, critics dismissing the game out of hand without playing it and all points in between. There's even a special appearance from a poster telling others that they don't experience frame rate drops and if they do, they're wrong.

All part of life's crazy rich tapestry I guess. I'll check back when I've actually played the game....

I had my doubts about this game right from the beginning. The control scheme wasnt something that made me look forward to it. When I star fox guard was announced as a physical copy to be included in the first print edition I was sold (dont know why though) and pre-ordered it. Right now I am not feeling to comfortable about getting this game - seems a bit lackluster, rushed, twisted towards the end of production and definitely not a killer-app - I was even thinking about cancelling my pre-order. Still I decided to get it and be open minded about it - hopefully I find something to like about it.

@Vandy Haha quite... "That Fox doesn't look anything like the one that was raiding through my bins last night!"

I think some of what people are thinking are "bad graphics" are stylistic choices rather than technical limitations... (those are manifested in the fact its not 1080p and locked at 60fps. But its hi-res and smooth enough to look just lovely on a decent size & quality TV...

I read the first 230 or so comments, but then gave up. Well done guys on one of the dullest comments sections I've come across.

Did anyone really expect this game to average score above 80/100? The controls have been an obvious 'snag' for nearly a year. Plenty of people have predicted that the mainstream will dismiss the new controls without giving them a proper crack, so a score in the 70s has always been on the cards. Nothing about what we've seen of the game has ever given the impression that it would be particularly well received. Very few people could have expected SFZ to knock it out of the park.

I've ordered the game because it's going to be a unique experience in the world of a classic Nintendo franchise - perfect for a Wii U collection. I look forward to learning the controls and not noticing any framerate dips (I can barely distinguish 60fps from 30fps, let alone be bothered by it).

@gcunit That's a bit unfair, surely some people have misunderstood that point about metascores and repeated themselves 50 times, when the important thing is what all those reviews tell, and the fact that they agree about the issues of this game... Like somebody said, let's talk about the game itself, not about nonsense and conspiracies.

About your post, the problem is that the fps drops affect the gameplay when they are not stable, and the controls are awkward by default, so it's not the most playable Star Fox game ever according to most reviewers, I haven't played it myself.

@Andrzej777 I hate being disappointed by a game, specially when it's expensive, so I know how you feel. If Nintendo released a demo, people would be able to find out if the game is worth €50.

@samuelvictor Most complaints about the visuals mention the 720p resolution and the 20 fps drops. The visuals are quite simple, even a bit plain from an artistic point of view, but not necessarily bad.

@electrolite77 Great post. Also, you are not the only one thinking that about Xenocity, so I don't blame you. Some people think it's a cartoon, some people think he's a CPU poster...

@Oubie Yeah, I'm almost the same age, so I know what you mean. Adult life is tough LOL We can chat on Wii U to stop spamming. XD

Seems like a fun game, and I have played my share of sloppy games I for one applaud the control scheme that is different I don't mind a learning curve in a game. People these days only seem to want games that score like 9+.
Review are always a bit of a personal thing, while some reviewers love the game and aren't bothered by it's bumps and warts others, like that polygon chump(Seriously, Polygon is up there with Gamespot, IGN and Kotaku with always writing reviews i don't agree with but that's another rant.) refuse to finish the game because -insert baby mario cry noise here-

A 7 or an 8 as a score means it's a good to great game and with good I mean good. not spectecular or amazing but also not bad or terrible by any means.

What people also forget that taste is personal, even if a game gets a certain score doesn't mean no one can have fun with it. I played tons of games deemed bad or lackluster but had great fun with it but was totally bored by tripple A games that are praised to high heavens.

Review numbers are not laws of nature people need to abide by, use your own judgement like a sane and responspible grown up human being

@Socar I don't really think that any game would NEED a multiplayer mode, per se. But some games would definitely benefit from it, if you ask me.

See, the thing with Fire Emblem is that (and I say this as a longtime fan of the series) that I have always lamented the fact that the game didn't have a multiplayer mode, especially with Awakening.

I live in a household with one other sibling, whom also happens to love Fire Emblem. With Awakening, we were both disappointed with the fact that we couldn't match our armies up against each other in battle, so that we could constantly develop our tactics and generally get more out of the game. It wasn't enough for us to dislike that particular entry (heck, we've logged soooo many hours into that game, it's unreal!), the game was and still is great in our opinion! But it could have been so much more, had they taken the time to implement a proper multiplayer mode.

Most people tend to overgeneralize the fact that most game companies nowadays tend to shoehorn in a multiplayer mode, regardless of whether the game actually needs/could use it when they argue that most games don't need multiplayer.

I mean, think about it. Another F-Zero (probably will never happen) with a 30 player online mode? That could be quite fun. And besides, a variety in game modes isn't always bad.

@VanillaLake Watch_Dogs on Wii U also supposedly has framerate issues according to most people and was reviewed down as a result, but it affected my enjoyment of the game not one iota - if fps issues were there I didn't notice them. I experienced a couple of freezes, but in the grand scheme of things they were totally irrelevant and I would score the game at least 8.75, so if SFZ is similar I can't wait to be as pleasantly surprised as I was with WD.

This game could hve been more than it is but i'm still really excited. It needs a bit more content in terms of branching paths and an online multiplayer dogfighting mode to be all it can be but the graphics being only OK doesn't bother me and from what i've heard the controls are excellent once you get them down. I'm excited and glad i got it on preorder, Guard looks cool too and as a free throw in for early adopters i think it helps mitigate the content issue a bit. Yay, Star Fox.

That right there is a hugely contrasting opinion to the 8/10 review above.

Regardless of what you personally take from it, all I'm saying is there's got be something going wrong when even one professional reviewer simply doesn't want to finish your game because of how frustrating it is. It's like he simply couldn't be bothered bull******** anymore. And I'm not saying this review is more or less "true" than any other review floating around the Interweb, but you'll not see this kind of thing happen too often; that much I can tell you for sure.

To me, it speaks volumes, regardless of each person's individual opinion of how good or bad Star Fox Zero is.

@Xenocity I personally love a good on rails shooter now and then. I loved Sin and Punishment 2 and House of the Dead on Wii. I loved Panzer Dragoon Orta on Xbox. Don't get me started on Rez or the first 2 Star Fox games. I loved them! I don't mind that Star Fox has stuck with that style. But I am concerned about the controls. It seems they went out of the way to fix something that wasn't broken to begin with, all to justify the features of a control pad that is on it's way out and failed to succeed in the way it's predecessor the Wii mote did. At the very least they should have given us the options to play with standard controls the way Splatoon did. I'm still buying it because I love this series and they don't make enough Star Fox games as it is. But I really hope the controls don't hinder my enjoyment of what sounds like an otherwise fun game.

Maybe if enough people hate on the controls they wiill patch in support for classic Star Fox controls. That should have at least been an option. Splatoon let you turn off gyro controls. I have never liked gyro controls. Pointing and motion with the Wiimote was doable, but in most cases I don't enjoy gyro motion as a means of aiming.

Also, I want to state for the record that I don't think any of Star Fox Zero's problems (as certain people might see them), stem from it being an on-rails shooter. There is ZERO (pun intended) reason that an on-rails shooter couldn't score in the high 9s and be universally loved and praised in 2016 imo—ZERO. It just has to be done right. Let's not place the blame on the genre (or whatever you'd call it), because I think that's actually disingenuous to the real root of the issue here.

Give me a few million quid and a team of 10 or so talented artists/animators/programmers/musicians, and I'll show you an on-rails "Star Fox" shooter that will blow your ******* socks off.

@gcunit About the same amount I take into account Nintendo Life's, or IGN's, or Gamespots, or . . .

They're all professional gaming sites and are generally pretty reliable with the quality of journalism they output imo, which is mostly of a high standard—even the reviews and articles I personally disagree with.

@Socar Yeah, but we weren't really talking about development time and costs. If we're talking resources, then yes, adding a multiplayer mode could potentially spell doom for the game in a multitude of ways.

I'm just saying that, while implementing multiplayer can be risky for a game's development because of the diversion in resources, there are enough examples of games that have a good single and multiplayer portion.

I don't know. Dismissing the potential added value of a multiplayer mode outright seems a little bit narrow minded to me. Especially when there are good examples of games that have benefited from including said mode.

@Kirk So a professional journalist rage quits a game because they can't get the hang of it and that makes it reliable? More like attention-seeking in some people's eyes, and certainly not professional.

I should admit, however, in speculating on the content of ethe Polygon article based on what others have said about it. If prefer to avoid to be baited into reading it first hand.

@gcunit Put it this way: I do not believe there's anything fake going on in that review. I believe that's a genuine reaction going on right there, simply expressed in digital/written form via the medium of a non-game review on the Internet.

The guy found this game so frustrating that he literally rage-quit and couldn't even finish his own review (meaning he could even give it a final score).

I've played games where I have LITERALLY obliterated a controller against my wall in rage at how frustrating the were. Actually, that was a brand new electric screwdriver where I stuck the head part in the wrong way and couldn't get it back out again (in that case it was partly due to unclear instructions and just a stupid design that made it impossible to simply pull the head part back out again if you accidentally slipped it in the wrong way)—but you get the point.

Some games, when they just aren't working for you, can be enough to make you simply not want to touch them again. And you can be that guy and always blame the player or reviewer if you want (always finding some way to deflect any blame from your beloved Nintendo)—but I know there's such a thing as bad game design (be it in the controls, gameplay, level design, presentation and graphics, or whatever). It's just a question of whether there really is some of that happening here imo.

@gcunit You have to admit though in the pre-wii era no one was quitting games over the controls. And it's not like polygon is alone in that quite a lot of people really hate the controls and even NL right here said you'll curse the controls and want to quit the game before you've even finished.

This all sounds like a combination of Yoshi's New Island and Skyward Sword. Reviewers were not impressed with Skyward's fiddly control gimmicks, and Yoshi's New Island fell into the quicksand that is being essentially a remake without actually being a remake.

So now there's a game with fiddly controls AND in remake-but-not limbo? I'm honestly surprised it's reviewing THIS well! (Of course, I say that as a non-Star Fox fan; just pointing out that Nintendo has established these unpopular trends in other games)

@Vandy Stop trying to find silly ways to invalidate his experience/opinion of the game.

Some people liked it and others clearly did not. And, in this case, this particular reviewer disliked it so much and found it all so frustrating that he simply couldn't finish it. But, I'm willing to bet that he played a fair chunk of it, and he could certainly see the map and the various game modes and options, enough to guesstimate the rough size of the game.

@Yorumi NintendoLife has been pointing out the issue with the controls from the get-go, this isn't some sudden shock. Surely we all anticipated this sort of reception. The difference is NL has followed the development of the game and has an active interest in delving deeper, to the point where an understanding has been reached that, like learning to drive a manual car, it starts out very frustrating, but ultimately delivers a reward.

The controls aren't broken. Going by Damien's comments the game controls very well, delivering an exhilarating experience. That's what I'm here for, and it will be unique for some time to come as no-one else is going to copy it in a hurry.

SFZ is exactly the sort of game, it would appear, where the mainstream opinion is of little value. It's a niche title on a niche console - niche squared, which I understand may be frustrating for those who just wanted a mainstream modernisation of an iconic game, but I'm planning on enjoying the exclusivity of living in niche squared land for a while.

I swear after reading comments on various sites I have a feeling this game is going to pull a W101 for me. Which is to say vocal complainers hate or complain about it, and I can't put it down. I am READY for this game.

@Vandy I'm showing that in this particular case there is clearly something up; that's it's not as simple as accepting the game must be good and any of the more negative reviews should just be ignored.

As I already stated, the reason I posted this particular view is to show that, unlike most games with various reviews scores (some higher and some lower, and some in between), there's a bigger issue going on here.

You don't get a professional game reviewer rage-quitting a main franchise Nintendo game before he's even finished his review very often. Even to you . . . that should tell you something (and not your fanboy "Nintendo is God; Journalist is crazy" interpretation things).

Citing that review is basically endorsing a movie critic who says "I only watched the first 10 minutes of Citizen Kane before I fell asleep because I couldn't get into it. Therefore, the movie is too short and terrible."

@Vandy No, I just picked one specific review for the reason I have now stated a couple of times and will not state to you again. Don't, however, equate that to all there is to show here to backup the idea that this game maybe isn't all super-duper awesome. How silly is that, to suggest that since one link was provided there must only be one like available to make such a point.

Regardless of everything else (whatever one person could throw out here or there) the game is still at a 72 on sites like Metacritic and OpenCritic, and, as far as I'm concerned, even that is very disappointing for the latest Star Fox game in 2016. But, showing you an example where one professional journalist disliked his experience with the game so much that he literally rage quit it before finishing is very telling imo. Look, I just stated the reason again for you.

But, I expect most current Wii U and Nintendo fans will be perfectly happy with an average of 72 scoring Star Fox game in 2016.

I'm just not supporting poor journalism, which is what that half-assed "not a review" is. Critics and journalists have been steadily devolving over the years to just click-bait hacks. So I'm not going to endorse or encourage nonsense like that article.

You can't handle the truth—it upsets you that Nintendo maybe didn't make a truly worthy Star Fox game—so you go off on one and start calling me ridiculous.

72 on Metacritic. 72 on OpenCritic. Those aren't stellar aggregates. A professional Journalist rage quitting before finishing the game. Most reviews pointing out the controls as being a sticking point, even the ones that try to put it in the best light they can. Almost none of the bigger and more respected gaming sites scoring it above 80% (IGN, Nintendo Life, Gamespot, Destructoid, Giant Bomb, etc). The highest scores tending to come from sites where the reviewers are open hardcore Nintendo fans. . . .

It's seems you want to believe it's great and any criticism is wrong. I'm just pointing out the actual truth.

Wow, seems like most people here can't even accept that someone (gasp) doesn't think they'll like a Nintendo game?

Saying you'll like the game before it comes out is "judging it" too. No different from saying you don't think you will like it. If you were truly being "neutral," you would be neutral in your arguments as well and not trying to insist the game is amazing.

The review doesn't read like an 8 to me and since this is on the same level as Paper Jam according to this website, I probably won't be picking it up.

And how many dozens of reviews by other "professional journalists" have praised the game?

At least I'm not being selectively biased when choosing my sources. That's why I'm not even citing sources. All I'm saying is that no one truly knows how good the game is or isn't until they have played it for themselves. I was told Metal Gear Solid 4 was one of the finest games of all time and I couldn't bear more than a half hour of it.

@Vandy It's averaging a 72 on the aggregate sites. So, even with all the best scores mixed in there, it's still CLEARLY not some amazing Star Fox game. And it's FAR below the standard I'd personally ask of a brand new Star Fox game in 2016—but maybe I just have higher and more demanding standards than you.

And, the point of that one review I linked is, again, to show you that something is going here that is far beyond just some journalists having slightly differing opinions on a generally decently received game. 72 is a decent enough game, but how often do you see it come up that even one journalist found such an issue with the clunky, convoluted, and frustrating controls that they literally didn't even bother to finish the game and therefor couldn't complete their review?

So, again, I'm telling you that this single review, on Polygon no less, speaks volumes in this particular case imo. It hints at something beyond the general average of 72 that the game is now settling on, which, if that is all you go by (or worse, you take just a single review as gospel), still doesn't paint the real picture imo.

What I'm telling you is that there IS a big problem with these controls, regardless of all the people that have forced themselves to get used to them, and I think that review speaks to it.

But, as I said, you don't have to see that truth. You just believe whatever makes you feel best about Nintendo's latest "effort".

@CreamyDream Yeah but isn't that kind of a bit pointless? I mean I don't really want to play the game in a piecemeal fashion. I just want to play from start to finish, going different paths depending on my performance and choices.We'll see, but I guess outside of occasionally replaying some favourite level, I don't really see the point.

The biggest problem for smug elitists like yourself is the fact that you can't hide comments history on this website. So even a cursory glance through yours paints a picture of how miserable you are. It's inexplicable that a site called "Nintendolife" attracts so many people who, quite frankly, don't seem to like Nintendo all that much.

inb4 you say "Nintendo fanboy you will like anything they put out". I simply prefer to have an unbiased discussion about things in a fair manner. There are plenty of Nintendo releases I didn't care for. And it's clearly not possible to have those discussions with the likes of you.

I once LOVED Nintendo—more than you ever will in your entire existence (and you can take that to the ****** bank)—and THAT's why I'm so harsh when I see it churning out average meh that people like you think it the best thing since sliced bread.

A 72% average back the days of SNES, for what is basically a first party main franchise Nintendo game (irrespective of it being farmed out—but even that is telling), would a ****** joke.

I'm just calling a spade a spade. This isn't good enough for a new Star Fox game in 2016. And THAT's the truth of it.

And, I'm pointing you to things that maybe hint at exactly why it's not good enough—but you can choose not to see and hear those things. That is your prerogative. You can keep on enjoying relative mediocrity. I, unfortunately, don't like to settle, and especially when I know that Nintendo actually is capable of FAR, FAR, FAR more.

I love how 99 out of a hundred of us haven't played the damn game yet we still have a comment section full of people saying "review score needs to be change!", "Nintendo needs to stop putting gimmicks in games! extremely long essay here", "Day one buy. All you guys are just haters and I'm such a special snowflake because of it!" and the review only came out less than 24 hours ago. I mean there's liking Nintendo and then there is just being over obsessive. Just wait till the game come out damnit.

"I once LOVED Nintendo—more than you ever will in your entire existence—and THAT's why I'm so harsh when I see it churning out average meh that people like you think it the best thing since sliced bread."

You don't know anything about me, so you can't speak for me. You're not doing your image any favors by making such preposterous assumptions and your credibility is being further damaged by these claims.

@Kirk I quit the demo of this game when I played it, such was my first reaction to the controls... and yes the SNES game at the time greatly impressed me, even though I was a then SEGA fan / console owner.

@Vandy I grew up in foster care. Most children in foster care don't even graduate high school, let alone go to University. But, I eventually got an Hons degree in Animation & Electronic Media, specifically because I wanted to get into games and that was the closest thing to a videogame degree at the time. And, I attribute me going to Uni almost entirely to the first time I played Super Mario World and it literally changing my life by showing me my true passion in life and giving me a goal and purpose going forward; hence going to uni, and also winning the first ever John Chant Award for Young Achievers in foster care for doing so. Playing Nintendo, in some way, literally saved my life by actually giving me a future. During and after uni I wrote to and then applied for job at Rare a total of 11 times (and Nintendo a few times too, but getting a job a Rare was more realistic at the time). My application included a design for a 3D/isometric Mario platform game, that existed before the likes of both Super Mario RPG and Super Mario 64. I got job at Rare and worked on games like Donkey Kong Country Colour and Banjo Kazooie: Grunty's Revenge. After Rare I designed things like a motion controller for then unrevealed Revolution, which I was already doing long before the Revolution was even announced. I've made multiple videogames myself at this point, some taking direct inspiration from Nintendo game. Even now, I still harbour a secret dream to one day work at/for/with Nintendo. And, at nearly 40 years old, I STILL visit multiple Nintendo game sites each and every single day, even as much as Nintendo CLEARLY and constantly ****** me off and frustrates me these days.

THAT'S REAL LOVE. You know how you know—because you keep coming back even when it seems like hate is all that flows through you as far as any ignoramuses on the outside perceive.

Now, go embarrass yourself and even try to compare. . . .

You don't have the slightest clue what it is to TRULY love something like that.

Still, you don't know anything about me. You can't compare your "love" for something to my "love" for something because it's all just hearsay.

I can do it too:

I am Shigeru Miyamoto's son and my birth name is Nintendo Nintendo Miyamoto and I have a Masters degree in Nintendo from Nintendo University. I also drew up the first technical blueprints for the Wii on a cocktail napkin until my dad stole the designs from me.

Hey, and check this out: This is what I sent to Rare as part of my job application (Note: This version has obviously been slightly updated over the years with newer games):

"[When I first applied for a job in videogames at Rare, I was asked to write a cover document detailing why I wanted to work in the industry and what it meant to me personally. I have provided a slightly updated version of that original document here because I feel it clearly sums up my passion for and commitment to video games, and the views expressed within still hold true to this day]

Over the years I have played many great video games, including classics such as Super Mario World, Street Fighter II Turbo, Dungeon Keeper 2, Advance Wars, GoldenEye, Sega Rally Championship, Halo: CE, and Journey, to name a few of my favourites. And each time I experience a genuinely great video game it reminds me why I love them so much.

As a child there is a certain magic quality about many occasions: The night before Christmas, waiting for Santa to visit and deliver your presents, and the excitement, tension, and anticipation that something special is going to happen. On Christmas day when you open your presents, it is enchanting playing with your toys for the first time. When people grow up and as the world itself matures, this excitement is often lost, and along with it those childlike feelings of wonder and magic.

I want to recreate the magic I experienced as a young boy discovering the power of video games for the first time. I would like to work on video games that are so special that when a child, teenager, or adult plays them they are immediately inspired and their lives changed. I want to help inspire the next generation of game designers and enkindle the passion in people who had not previously been interested in video games to become a part of this amazing industry.

It is my ambition and desire to create exciting new worlds, characters, and experiences that allow people to escape from the daily routine for just a little while and travel to wondrous new places full of imagination and adventure. Some people do this by directing awe inspiring film epics or writing wonderfully enchanting fairy tales. Others compose beautifully moving and uplifting melodies. I wish to realise it in video games."

@Kirk Yep, was the buy your console, make your choice, stare a bit longingly at games on the other system era! I still like Star Wing, even down to its Afterburner style sounding (or, loose tribute perhaps) intro music, ha!
16-bits were good days!

To be fair: There's some pretty frikin' awesome stuff happening in gaming right now, VR being the closest thing to feeling that magic again for me personally.

But, the SNES was one of those moments where pretty much everything was perfect. There was all of the good and basically none of the bad.

Today, there's so much good but it always comes with quite a bit of unavoidable bad mixed in there too (talking about things like DRM, non-ownership of digital games, overly convoluted setups, accounts systems, broken stuff at release and patches. . . .)

@Joestar- Yeah, I'm willing to be that if someone did an aggregate of all Nintendo game review scores for each year going all the way back to the NES, they'd find that in recent times Nintendo has been averaging some of its lowest aggregate scores ever. I think it would probably be highest in the NES/SNES/N64 eras (I couldn't actually pick which one of those three though)

Am I gonna bother doing that? No—but I'm pretty confident it would be a close to accurate assertion.

I certainly feel like Nintendo's standards have quite noticeable dropped in recent times. There's still some gems in there, to be sure, but I think there's a lot more average and mediocre than there's ever been.

@Yorumi Yeah, and I expect that even if the amount of games isn't particularly lower, it might possibly even be higher, that there will be far more filler in there than there's even been. I fear it's only going to get worse too, with the upcoming mobile stuff, and my suspicions about what's coming with NX.

I guess I'm still getting it, I'm a huge fan of N64 entry and this seems a great game overall.

However, it had potential to be a masterpiece. A flawless game. They had time, they had the tools and guidance of Mr Miyamoto, I keep asking to myself WHY it turned out as a "great, but not too special" game. And this control nonsense... you don't have to get used to something that barely works, if there was an easier setting (Pro Controller/Dual Analog) why not build the game around it and forget the gimmicky motion madness? They lost WAY TOO MUCH TIME adjusting that, a time that could be put into other aspects of the game to make it much better.

Great job, Miyamoto—you couldn't have simply offered the TV-tablet scheme as an option. Whatever compelled you to do that is clearly beyond the majority's comprehension, and whoever denies that is a blind loyalist that refuses to accept Nintendo is capable of making mistakes.

To see reviews recommend Star Fox 64 over this one does not exactly inspire confidence, but I will be purchasing this regardless of the disposition that surrounds this game. Still, it's difficult for me to accept Nintendo's ideology around trying to 'force' the gamepad's integration onto Wii U owners when off-TV play (as I recall) was one of the highest received uses according to the polls.

@Kirk Yeah, was only the demo I played but certainly it didn't grab my attention, not like the first time I played Sonic, Starwing or something like Mario 64. In a sense the game is trading on nostalgia, so i figure is bound to be caught between its derivative aspects and attempts to cater to younger gamers unfamiliar with the older games.For me, the visuals were less than Id hope for to be honest.Be good if they put the demo out on the eshop really, as the controls are certainly different.

I just saw this comment in the comments sections for the Star Fox Zero review on Giant Bomb:

"Also, if you want a good Star Fox game, play Sin and Punishment 2 because that game is awesome."

So true.

And, I can relatively easily imagine a Star Fox game for 2016 that's a whole order of magnitude better than the kinda awesome Sin & Punishment games, and also even way better than the original and seminal Star Fox SNES classic too—and it would basically STILL be an on-rails shooter as I imagine it.

@Kirk DUDE, SIN AND PUNISHMENT IS THE BEST SERIES I'VE DISCOVERED IN RECENT YEARS. I BOUGHT THE SECOND IMMEDIATELY AFTER PLAYING THE FIRST. LOL

Also, think it's also important to mention the dips in frame rate are to blame on the gamepad's integration. Because the game is being rendered on two screens simultaneously, the game's performance suffers. LOL Great job, guys.

The review is good, and it reads like a solid 7/10 title, but then NL gives it an 8/10... Just because it's a core Nintendo product. What a shocker! >_> Can't have those mainline Nintendo products get any less than an 8 on a Nintendo fan site, right?

@Xenocity Who the hell was complaining about the original Star Fox having a kiddy presentation? None of the gaming magazine reviews of the time said any such thing. That was the era of every console having their share of kiddy products too, due to the younger ages of the industry and average player base. Were you even old enough to remember what gaming was like back in those days?

@Action51 I agree with Nintendo Life's worded review. The problem is, their number score doesn't match their words. And that number score is what most people are going to see, and is what will be counted across the internet's reviews on conglomerations like Metacritic, not the more detailed words. Since those critic review scores affect the bottom line of Metacritic and all major titles on there, it is important not to skew the score away from what one has truly expressed. Otherwise, the process becomes dishonest.

If Nintendo Life is honest, they should revise the score down to a 7, to match their words.

From my perspective, it is well argued why NL gave Star Fox an 8, but everyone is free to disagree. But arguing that just because the site is "NintendoLife" the score is skewed is doing a disservice to Damien in this case, who has more than proved that takes his time to play the game before releasing the review.

We really need a demo so that everyone can judge by themselves and stop arguing over a number. It is a bit sad to see so many people interested in a number instead of the very important question of: is the game is fun?

@Kirk The funny thing about this is that back in the day, I traded in the original Star Fox to Funcoland, because I beat the Easy and Normal routes, and couldn't complete the Hard route, it was too tough for me back then. I later got Star Fox 64, and by that time, clearing all the paths was fun, but seemed way too easy by comparison.

Maybe that's like what went wrong here, too... Nintendo made SF Zero with most of it's inspiration coming from SF64, and drawing some elements from SF2. If they drew most of their inspiration from the original, the resulting product would have to be a technical marvel for today, as well as a further refinement of previous rail shooters.

Many of us thought we wanted more of SF64, but maybe what we really wanted was something new, in the vein of the original... Sometimes we don't know what we want until we have something we thought we wanted, but doesn't quite measure up to something that came before in one way or another.

I personally never wanted a newer take on Star Fox 64, and most certainly not any stuff from the cancelled Star Fox 2 either. Personally, I honestly don't really rate those games; Star Fox 64 just felt like a poor man's sequel to the seminal original imo, but with a kinda cool rumble feature. And I think Star Fox 2 is actually pretty **** (I've played it on an emulator).

I would have loved a new Star Fox game that was basically in the vein of the original, in all the ways the original was a cutting-edge, epic masterpiece for its time—and still basically an on-rails shooter too.

Sadly, it seems Nintendo listened to those other fans, not the ones like me, so we'll never know what a truly worthy Star Fox game in 2016 could have been like.

@Luna_110 "Is Star Fox Zero fun?" According to the words in this review, the answer to that question is, "Yes, but with some reservations here and there." However... "Yes, it's fun" isn't what Nintendo Life resounds throughout the internet, the number score is.

@sWiTcHeRoO Oh, it's forced alright. There's moments you simply cannot play the game without them (I think on certain boss battles and alternate vehicles missions, for example), and it seems like it hard to avoid them most of the other times anyway. Basically, you're stuck with them.

@PlywoodStick I feel that maybe on a subconscious level Damo gave it an 8/10 to counter some of my constant negativity around the game. lol

Arrogance*, but I feel that if he was being truly honest with himself, and not having to back up previous assertions about the controls being good and whatever else, that he might have given it a slightly lower/harsher score.

Or maybe I'm just projecting.

*I really am arrogant at times—but then, I also think I'm God, so it all totally makes sense. LOL

@CreamyDream "I also know that when you revisit the gyrocopter levels after completing the game once, you can play them with the arwing like a normal mission instead too, if that's any better."

I didn't know that, interesting, though I'm curious how that'll work. What I meant by pointless, is that I don't really feel like this is the way the game was meant to be played. Maybe it's different with 'Zero', we'll see.

Lol, if you want to play it play it. This is why I miss the demise of rentals, no reviewer is as good at reviewing a game as yourself to see if you like it.

I was so shocked when I got a PS3 at the number of boring or crappy games that got a 8 out of ten or higher pass on review sites just for the brand or company.

There are actually people complaining here that the review doesn't read like an 8 so change it to a 7. That's why you can read reviews instead of just looking at a number. That's why they also won't change it.

@Kirk Well, the review itself says, "The first time you play through Star Fox Zero, you will inevitably curse the controls. They seem to present an almost insurmountable obstacle when it comes to enjoying the game, and at certain points - the final boss battle in particular - you may even be close to giving up entirely."

That's a damning indictment if I've ever read one. It took a few hours for the controls to finally click... which makes sense if you're playing an MMORPG or an RTS, but not an on rails shooter. The controls for a game like Star Fox should take an hour to learn. Traditionally, if it takes much longer than that, the score gets docked. It's enough to shave off 1 point in this case.

Combine that with another point shaved off from lack of features, especially for multiplayer, and another point from treading closely to the source material, but not executing it as well as hoped (which also traditionally earns a subtracted point) and we're left with a 7/10.

@Kirk Welp. Guess I'll be saving my money then.Here's hoping they stop with this motion controls nonsense. It's not fun at all.The only kind of game I'll give it a free pass on is something like Mario Party, otherwise, no.

@Project_Dolphin "So, it's not enough for other gamers to just disagree about the goodness of Star Fox Zero; there must be groupthink."

Huh? Where'd you get that from? That's a bit of a strawman. I'm just saying his review has all the traditional hallmarks of a 7/10 review, so it seems skewed a little high. It's not a crime, and plenty of other sites have done it. But it gives the wrong impression at a glance, nonetheless.

@PlywoodStick And, I'd be even harsher, because I personally believe the controls for something like an on-rails shooter should be easy enough to learn in literally a matter of minutes. And pretty much totally mastering them shouldn't even take an hour imo. I'd mastered the original's controls (Star Fox on SNES) by the time I left the initial control screen (where you can mess around with the ship in the little window and test the various buttons and inputs), and certainly by the time I finished the training area (which was maybe five mins long, give or take). It shouldn't take much longer than that to get fully to grips with your typical shmup imo (be it 2D, 3D, on-rails, off-rails, whatever).

@sWiTcHeRoO Yeah, exactly: There's games where I don't think it's a particularly big deal to try out slightly more gimmicky stuff. And there's games and times where it's just so wrong it's not even funny. Star Fox Zero was not the right game or time to go ******* around with everything just to "prove" the worth of the GamePad—which it still really didn't imo.

@Project_Dolphin I wasn't looking for an argument... As I told Kirk on how 3 points would be subtracted, I'm basing what I think the review tells the score is by what I've read in critical review/score structure and intonation for over 20 years, for pretty much every platform (not just Nintendo), and all from many different publications. Back in the '90s and early '00s, higher scores were handed out more rarely than today, and were reserved for great achievements with few or no glaring flaws, while SF Zero has several.

I think we're both a bit guilty of using certain parts of the review to reinforce what we're saying, too, so it's probably best to just leave it at that.

@SetupDisk So... Would you have preferred those bad/boring PS3 games with an 8/10 score had been given a more appropriate score, so you wouldn't have bothered with them in the first place, and knew what to expect beforehand? Or was it okay to leave them as 8/10, so more people would check them out, even though they're apparently bad enough compared to their scores to shock you?

@zool Having a learning curve is bad?? There are too many dumbed down games out there these days. It is nice to have a game that provides a unique control experience and in order to provide a unique experience you need a learning curve. I am just kind of disappointed that it is basically a remake of Star Fox 64.

"That is correct. You can turn off motion controls on the GamePad (as in gyroscopic) BUT they will still be on when you ZR lock target onto enemies, which is for precision. If you don’t use the ZR lock targeting, motion controls don’t confuse the mechanic scheme and you can aim with the left stick to control your crosshairs. Sorry that wasn’t explained in the review fully. "

I had to read this several times before it began to make some sense. I say some because I understand the mechanic requirements when motional control is turned off, I just think i'ts stoopid-oh design by a large margin.

This control scheme is way out in left field from the sounds of it and it sounds like a far cry from the time of picking up a wiimote and just getting it. This is the definition of cumbersome.

Now for those who might not remember, the original Star Fox did have a first person mode as well, but it was normal in that you shoot where you steered your Arwing, just like in real life. It had simple indicators representing the edge of your aircraft. Simple. I get it.

Miyamoto failed to exercise one o the tenements of game design: don't waste the player's time learning to play your game. The simpler your game's play style the less you should force the player to have to learn it. This being a rail shooter should not require half hour to an hour or more be competent.

8 what a crock! The game has no pick up play controls, no online, the review its self refers to the game as plain. And the player reviews say 4 This review is rubbish! Learn to review games properly based on replay, content, not just arse licking Nintendo!

"on-par with the excellent N64 entry from which it draws so much inspiration - and that should be music to the ears of seasoned Lylat veterans."

Err.....not really. What we want(ed) is a brand new "on rails" Star Fox shooter game with no awkward walking sections, and not a glorified remake that is obviously been done in a rush to justify the gamepad.

That being said, Star Fox seems perfectly suited to the Gamepad, though Pilotwings would've been better. And if they built a new game from the ground up it could've been spectacular.

I will know doubt enjoy it when I get home tonight, but I feel the NX now can't come soon enough with Nintendo's streamlined teams delivering games "so reported" in a quicker timeframe.

@BensonUii No, I have this notion of Nintendo lowering its standards because once upon a time most first party, main franchise Nintendo games would be scoring basically 9+ across the board. There was a time when it would be laughable to even entertain the notion of a main Star Fox game scoring 72% on average*—but not now, apparently. And, it generally didn't put out too many blatant half-*****, cash-grab spin-offs from most of its core franchises either—especially not as basically the only new games in a whole generation in those franchises. Usually, even the spin-offs were pretty great too (see Mario Kart, Yoshi's Island, Tetris Attack, etc.). That doesn't seem to be the case anymore, from what I'm seeing, hence the notion of it lowering its standards.

And, it seems to me that most of the fans are accepting these lower standards too—a whole lot of people in here seem to be defending Star Fox Zero (a main franchise, once top-tier game that's now averaging a 72% score)—hence my claim that they too are lowering their standards. Even Damo giving this game an 8/10 feels like a lowering of standards imo, because I genuinely don't think this is an 8/10 Nintendo title at all from everything I've seen and read, and certainly not based on past Nintendo standards (To me, Damo's going easy on it, or basically lowering his standards). But maybe it actually is an 8/10 game by current Nintendo standards, which just goes to my point again.

The most important thing here is that once upon a time when Nintendo put out what fans would consider a main franchise, top-tier game, it was CLEARLY a main franchise, top-tier game, and the media scores and general critical praise reflected that across the board. A 72% average for a brand new Star Fox game in 2016 doesn't even qualify imo. That would be like a brand new, main franchise, top-tier Zelda game scoring an 8 on average. Boy would that be a relatively huge disappointment for most sane people (and any REAL Nintendo fans)—despite an 8 being a good enough score for most other games out there. This is Nintendo—I expect, nay . . . I demand more.

@roboshort "Having a learning curve is bad?? There are too many dumbed down games out there these days. It is nice to have a game that provides a unique control experience and in order to provide a unique experience you need a learning curve."

A learning curve on though games is welcomed among many gamers. The latest success of From Software games prove that. Many of us got bored about the easy "take my hand" trend of recent games.

But a learning curve is typically requested, and well accepted in two distinct cases:

1) The game is very hard in its mechanics, so controls have to be very responsive and the player needs to have a reaction time of fraction of seconds, learn enemy movements and attacks, use all the weapons/skills/objects at his disposal to overcome foes, learn to interact with allies in a perfect synchronous way (i.e. Soulslike, SuperMeat Boy, Bitrip Runner, Helldivers).

2) The game itself is a realistic simulation of something that exist or is supposed to exist. Then "basic intuitive" controls are not best suited to give you the same feeling of the real thing (i.e. Assetto Corsa, any Flight Simulator, Elite Dangerous), hence the control learning curve...

These are also the main reason why such titles have barriers at start and they are not tailored for everyone.

Now, Star Fox Zero is introducing a learning curve in its controls that, according to many opinions on Web, is unnecessary, since previous iterations nailed such controls perfectly, while the game does not seem very hard in itself or so complicate to required it. Is a on rail shooter after all. It seems an overcomplicated gamepad showcase, a launch title that was released 4 years later.....

@Kirk "There was a time when it would be laughable to even entertain the notion of a main Star Fox game scoring 72% on average*—but not now, apparently. And, it generally didn't put out too many blatant half-*****, cash-grab spin-offs from most of its core franchises either—especially not as basically the only new games in a whole generation in those franchises. Usually, even the spin-offs were pretty great too (see Mario Kart, Yoshi's Island, Tetris Attack, etc.). "

Can't agree more on this... that's basically why my only recent (last 1 year) purchase for WiiU has been Xenoblade...

@BensonUii The majority of complaints, but not all of them. There are more issues raised with this game than just the controls—and well you know it—and many of those issues have also been pointed out in multiple reviews too, even the ones that gave it higher scores.

And, I never said "One individual Nintendo gamer's standards have lowered" I said Nintendo gamer standards appeared to have lowered in general. So, I don't really care what one individual thinks, or what a couple of people personally think; that's for them to care about. I'm talking about on the whole, across the board, and in general.

A 72% on average scoring main Star Fox game from Nintendo in 2016 is the kind of game you and a whole bunch of other Nintendo fans are basically defending—like that's actually good enough for a main Star Fox game in 2016.

If you can't see the point that is very clearly being demonstrated here (by people just like you) . . . it, again, goes to my point.

I'm confused, can someone please help me? Is it required to use the cockpit view on the GamePad? I read somewhere it's possible to just focus on the TV. I really can't stand confusing controls, I just don't have the time to spend it on a learning curve.

@Oubie At certain points you basically have no choice but to use it, from what I've read (in some boss battles, in some of the alternate vehicles). It is apparently literally forced upon you by the game at those times. And the game is constantly doing things to try to force you to use it even when not in those "choice"-free moments too.

But, imo, you're defending bad CONTROLS—not bad MOTION controls, but bad CONTROLS (design) overall. Star Fox Zero's controls consist of a combination of traditional controls, motion controls, and switching between two screen views, all in one. And, I'm claiming it's a clumsy and convoluted combination of all those things in this particular case, that, in a way, breaks something that wasn't broken and didn't need fixed in the first place.

You are, however, free to disagree—but I think the general consensus, based on the criticisms raised in almost every single review (including the higher scoring ones) basically supports my assertion.

And, for the record, I only have a track record of hating bad motion controls, and/or taking issue with flawed motion controls (as I see them). Give me great motion controls, and I'll be all over them with heaps of love and praise.

Watch me . . . praise these motion controls for example (by virtue of the sentence I just typed, and the sentences that will follow):

And, despite having some obvious issues, as I seem them, I think Skyward Sword had generally pretty frikin' awesome motion controls too. Although, with the VR setup above, they could be even better (by quite some ways).

@Kirk@Oubie OK. I've been playing the game just now - got my copy today.

The motion controls are as intuitive as Splatoon. There's next-to-nothing to it. I've got almost zero Star Fox experience (I have 64 3D but have hardly played any (25mins clocked on my N3DS) - I've never had, and don't remember ever playing, a Star Fox game prior to the 3DS version.

And yet, on my first playthrough of the first mission of SFZ, I'm able to get a silver medal (I'm not pretending that's an amazing accomplishment, btw, but it's obviously better than bronze, and I didn't die once) using full motion controls.

The motion controls are great, just like in Splatoon. So far I spend most of my time looking at the cockpit view on my gamepad, then look at the TV when I need a wider context to find enemies.

The whole fuss about the controls seems to be virtually unfounded to me, and reminds me of the type of near-sabotage the Wii U suffered earlier on in its life, and the kind of sabotage the Wii U version of Watch_Dogs got.

I just don't get it. It must just be people complaining that they can't handle two different views of the action on two screens at the same time. But the controls are absolutely fine. Something really stinks about how so much negative press has been made of these controls.

The only problem I have with Star Fox games so far is working out what I'm meant to be shooting, and what I have to do in-mission to complete the mission, but that's to do with the lack of a hand-holding radar telling me where the targets are, and nothing to do with the controls. And it's something I'll get better at.

Seriously, I'mnot making this up. I've played no more than 20 minutes and am almost a Star Fox virgin... and I love it.

@Kirk - you do realise that the motion controls with the gamepad in Splatoon, SFZ, and WWHD, for example, are just like the motion controls you've posted videos of - only difference is the lack of immersion from surround vision. Doesn't matter whether you're tilting your head or the gamepad. Main difference is the price difference - Wii U gamepad being much cheaper.

I have been playing the game for about an hour now, and the controls are way better than rumored.There are tutorials and training missions, to teach you the controls.But, it's really only when you have to aim perfectly that you have to look at the gamepad. Otherwise, you can just tilt and aim while looking at the TV. You very quickly get a feel for it all.

Yes, it might take a while to REALLY master the controls, but I blasted through the two first mission without any problems at the first try

Really, I was pretty negative towards the game, when it was shown on E3, but this is WAY better than I had expected.

@gcunit What videos are you talking about, because the ones I linked above (a couple of comments back) have guys holding two motions controllers (one in each hand) to move their arms around inside a physical 3D space (mimicking actions like pulling back an arrow on a bow, pointing their hand to fire a gun, and gesturing like they are actually throwing stuff, etc.), and Star Fox Zero has you tilting and rotating a GamePad that you hold with two hands together to aim a cursor on a flat screen (sorry; on one of two screens, depending on which one you're focussing on at the time)?

Unless a few really extreme reviews get added, like maybe Polygon actually finishes its review and gives Star Fox the score it thinks it honestly deserves (which would surely be pretty dang low), I don't think the score will really change now.

72%, which is decent enough in general, but, imo, pretty frikin' bad for a brand new main Star Fox game in 2016.

@BensonUii and how many times do I have to try motion controls and hate them before I can just write them off? I hated the waggle controls on the wii. I hated skyward sword and couldn't finish the game largely because of the controls. Splatoon works but the controls force a specific posture on me and means I can't relax while playing which starfox would also do. To add to that how often do I have to buy short low content games for $60 and be thoroughly disappointed before I learn my lesson and stop?

Starfox has low graphics and despite that still can't maintain a constant frame rate, it has no vs modes, no online, a super short single player, and annoying motion controls that exist not because they make sense but because nintendo wants to force them on us. I mean come on when even an 8/10 review is saying you'll want to quit the game because of the controls I have no interest in that game.

Anyways, quotes from VGchartz reflect reasons that have me excited to play this game:

"Well, there's good news: the control system works. What's more, it offers new gameplay possibilities and enhanced immersion."

"Because motion controls and GamePad viewing don't just heighten the intensity and deepen the gameplay of Star Fox Zero. They strengthen the connection between the player and the cockpit. Staring out into the blackness of space or looking down on tanks running roughshod over the terrain below, one feels more like a pilot than ever before in the series. "

@Turbo857 I agree with you, and I still don't get the hate on the controls and the game in general, especially now, after the reviews are up - and they aren't all that bad at all.

Seems it's just the same few people here who keep going on and on about the same thing over and over. All the passion, and time spent, and the amount of content written by some people in this comments forum to try to dissuade others from buying this game astound me.

Anyway, bundled with SF Guard, this game is exceptional value and I have preordered and paid in full.

@Turbo857 "Well, there's good news: the control system works. What's more, it offers new gameplay possibilities and enhanced immersion."

People keep saying things like this but to me it proves they have no idea what immersion means and are just throwing words out there. Starfox is attempting a crude simulation of fighter aircraft. What single operator fighter has a moveable gun? None, because no one in their right mind would design something like that, it would be impossible to use. I mean basically people are saying "hey guys wouldn't it be more immersive if the fighters in this game where WAY less realistic?" NO. That's not the way immersion works.

@Syrek24 Your words don't particularly affect me—although I do like to listen to my subjects). It's just obvious they're at least partly directed at me.

Let's be honest; they're mostly directed at me. lol

Wow, I really am that arrogant as to presume "It's all aboooout meeeee. It's all about meeeee-e-eeeeee.".

PS. You only want/need to believe that all I have is negativity about video games, because that's how you can continue to believe the self-lie that all Nintendo does is create awesomeness. But, the truth of what I say, when you look at and take into account the bigger picture, does not support your assertion:

All the truth really does is tell you that I clearly see a lot of problems with Nintendo specifically and what it's doing (and not doing) these days—and that's because there are a lot of problems with Nintendo specifically and what it's doing (and not doing) these days.

@Syrek24 - the funny thing is, if you go to NLs sister site, PushSquare, it's no where near as toxic. Sure you get the disagreements but they don't seem half as bad.

So it makes me wonder is this toxic nature a Nintendo only thing! I have noticed over the years there are a number of fans that unless Nintendo do exactly what they want they cry foul, declaring Nintendo blar blar this, blar blar that. One can only imagine what's going to happen when NX is revealed.

@MarvinTheMartian Do you think there's nothing toxic about the way Syrek24 was hurling insults around? Or are people who like nintendo allowed to engage in any kind of bad behavior they want? Any time you disagree with something nintendo does you're called a troll and far worse as syrek and others have shown in this comment section. You're told to leave, get off the site, stop posting and all the insults that accompany it. You might notice in my posting here I do not insult people, I specifically told someone right here to stop using the fanboy word to refer to people because I believe others should be treated with respect.

Despite all that how am I treated around here? I'm insulted almost daily, people engage in vendetta crusades against me, attack me personally, and in general do everything they can to engage in the most flaming and trolling behavior to get me to leave. Is that right? Are you ok with that? At what point do these people go to far?

I was under the impression this comments section was not toxic at all. I've not noticed anything that would warrant intervention from a mod, I don't think. It's just the repetitive back & forth over the same issue is boring as... but not toxic IMO.

@Kirk I was referring to the way the player follows the action through motion.

The moving of hands in a 3D space that you refer to is not much different to stuff like Wii Sports Boxing, other than the addition of the surround vision and the extra dimension of movement.

How would a dogfighting game using the tech you linked to be much different to dogfighting on the gamepad, other than the surround vision?

@gcunit I was using those examples only to show that I do in fact like motion controls, when they are done right—to counter whomever's claim that I simply don't like motion controls. Nothing more. I don't have to find a correlation between what's going on in Star Fox Zero and those examples to make that point. All you have to get from it is that CLEARLY I do actually like motion controls—when they are done well (as I see it).

PS. I think they think it's "toxic" because some people have something negative to say about precious Nintendo, and that upsets them. So, it is of course "toxic" as far as they are concerned.

What they're really saying, imo, is "But all we really want to hear on our beloved Nintendo fan site is endless love and praise for all things Nintendo, and all that blunt and brutal honesty about any real issues can just go a way and leave us alone. [Tears roll down face]"

It's basically not "toxic" when it's all pretend and lala happy land. But it is "toxic" when someone outright states something is bad (usually supported by the majority of the evidence) and absolutely won't back down on that assertion—even when the tears are rolling down the children's faces. :'-(

@BensonUii and NL says these controls are bad. They wanted to quit the game. In about 99% of situations that motion controls are used they are worse than just a button input. This is true of pretty much all the waggle controls. In splatoon they work but are they actually better than two stick? Well it's hard to say cause they did a poor job implementing the two stick controls in splatoon. Starfox's controls make people want to quit, yeah that's bad controls.

The problem is motion controls typically arn't implemented because they make a game better, they're implemented for novelty. Nintendo isn't looking at a game and saying "lets change the controls because it makes sense and is better" they saying "lets make the controls this way and figure out a way to design the game to force them to use this no matter what."

When you take polls of SS you get about 50/50 love/hate of the controls. How often does a good control scheme have half the people hating it?

That the thing I'm sick of it, I never got sick of controllers and keyboards but I'm sick of waving my arms around, recalibrating controls, holding a bulky gamepad in a specific position so I can't relax while playing games. I just want to play a good fun game without having awkward and annoying controls shoved down my throat.

Sorry, my friend, but it's just odd and, quite frankly, pretentious: "Hey everybody, look at me I guessed the score, here are all the links to prove it". Who cares, man? Why should people go through these links to see that you got a score right?

@Yorumi Your post #465 seems to selectively ignore the following lines in the review:

"Combining the targeting camera with evasive manoeuvres and GamePad aiming creates the kind of exhilarating ship-to-ship combat that we haven't experienced since the days of X-Wing and Wing Commander on the PC, way back in the early '90s".

"...we feel that with perseverance it's possible to become totally attuned to the controls, thereby removing this as a legitimate concern."

I'm not sure why you've chosen to do that, but it makes your post appear to be affected by bias.

NL doesn't say the controls are bad. NL says that, with perseverance, the controls are not a legitimate concern.

And FWIW, NL is also wrong... Damien wrote I would curse the controls when I first played SFZ, but I didn't, I actually liked them from the off. They make sense.

How about you give the game a fair, unbiased shot, then get back to us with your views?

@Kirk That reminds me, one of the publications which many on NL harbor good feelings for, Nintendo Power, was one of the toughest critics of their time. I don't think they ever once handed out a 10/10, only 9.7 or 9.8 at most, I think. It was a privilege just to earn an 8/10, and many games equivalent to SF Zero's caliber were mostly in the 7.0-7.9/10 range.

There were several reasons for this: NP used a multiple reviewer system, where most of the review staff pitched in their scores, and the average affected the final score, while one person gave the group's consensus in the main review content. Each aspect of the games also graded a score, and contributed to the final score- these were often graded quite harshly, even for mainline Nintendo products. As I remember it, even games of Ocarina of Time's caliber wasn't a 9/10 or 10/10 fest, it got some 8s in the individual scores, bringing it down to somewhere between a high 8/low 9. And finally, NP graded by genre, so they didn't use a one size fits all score as many publications did and still do. (Nintendo Life seems to flirt between using a genre grade and not, for example.)

So yeah, Nintendo Power was a tough grader, but it was one of my favorite parts of the magazine, because it they showed that it wasn't easy, but still fun, to grade each game from a mix of objective and subjective criteria. A lot of publications these days just seem to play softball all the time, and some readers latch onto that and lambast/gang up on/self-righteously shame anyone who disagrees. :/

You know, in many ways this is a lot like Nintendo not allowing blood in the original SNES version of Mortal Kombat (as I see it. Admittedly, you have to squint to get the correlation). . . .

In that, if you REALLY wanted to, you could come up with whole bunch of [****] reasons why it was a good idea to not include the blood, to justify Nintendo's choice, to be at peace with the decision. You could even find ways to show how, somehow, the game was better because of it (protecting the kids . . . and whatever other junk). And, the fact is, many of those excuses/defences would be factually true (in terms of you not just making up stuff)—but that's really beside the point now, isn't it.

When you think about it. . . .

Your [impossible] situation here with Star Fox Zero is that you somehow believe people like me are going to drink that same Kool-Aid you are drinking in regards to its overall controls, the level of presentation and graphics, the level design, and whatever else. And, you believe that we're actually the ones in the wrong for not drinking it.

But, you know and I know, even Nintendo knew, that we all secretly (usually not so secretly) wanted that blood in Mortal Kombat on SNES—which is why we eventually got it in Mortal Kombat II on SNES.

@PlywoodStick There were only three 10/10's ever given by Nintendo power... I think it was Metroid Prime 3, Super Smash Bros. Brawl and Resident Evil 4... i could be wrong so I might need to pull out a few old issues and check.

Think you're overestimating the love/hate with SS's controls a bit. There are people that didn't like'em but the game sold very well and is highly rated to this day. Whenever I see forums discussing SS, comments are usually in favor of the controls with a lesser few naysayers. Definitely not a 50/50.

@Kirk Thanks! So the total score was a 9.5, but at least one of the individual score points were 8.something (I think it may have been controls), so NP's score system was interesting, since it wasn't just up to the reader to round up or not. They didn't just say, "Well, these controls are unintuitive, even for the final boss, but we're going to round out the final score to a solid 8 anyways." They said, " Well, these unintuitive controls earn a 6 or 7.something/10 in our book, so the game doesn't quite earn a final 8/10." That's what happened with Ocarina as well, some parts were graded an 8.something individually (which only the magazine itself will tell you), while others were 9.something and 10.

Nice review. Weird I learn more about the game by watching the video review than reading the written review. Especially the part about jumping into any level instead of the constant play run (big plus) and both Arwing being possible to unlocked without amiibo, even though I already have them both (so-so).

Yikes almost 500 comments. I only read the first 150 or so comments which mainly focus on other site review numbers, but for some reason I think a good chunk of the comments is the same debate about the controls, like with the other articles.

@BensonUii again it's not a limitation. You keep implying I havn't used motion controls. I have, I hate them. Splatoon forces a certain posture on me and it sucks. All the wii's waggle controls would have been much better as a button press. I got sick of swinging my arm around in SS and it made combat MUCH less fun than having button inputs so I could actually do all the swordfighting link is capable of.

So again I ask how many times do I have to try motion controls and hate them before I can form an opinion?

@Turbo857 A lot of people bought the game cause it's zelda. I own the game and I hate it. I don't have any scientific polls but I've seen many forum polls with hundreds of votes and it's usually a pretty good 50/50 split.

@Wexter Okay, thanks for that! I think at some point during the late '00s, Nintendo Power changed their review system from their harsh '90s and early '00s era review system, so that would have been when 10s finally surfaced.

@PlywoodStick Well, this is why I love the review for the original Star Fox that I posted earlier, and why I specifically chose that review too; because it has more than one opinion, shows each aspect of the game broken down and scored individually, and it very clearly shows that the original Star Fox was rated in the 9s in every single category too (with "Playability" getting a 96/100, at least by that one review):

@Yorumi I think that in some cases, like the 1:1 aiming and combat motions/hit detection showcased by Zelda Quest in Nintendo Land, or pointer controls like in the Trauma Center series, motion controls really come out into their own and show off how they provide something traditional controls would have a very difficult time simulating. But yeah, there are exponentially more instances where certain types of motion controls are just shoehorned in and don't genuinely improve the experience, it's just either different or worse than traditional controls... Or perhaps even just worse than previous motion control options. (Which I think is what applies to Splatoon and SF Zero motion controls- the Wiimote+ and Nunchuck probably would have fared better than the Gamepad in both titles.)

@PlywoodStick They did, though they still got quite vocal about some games that they really did not enjoy. I in general miss Nintendo Power. My young self during the late 90's and early 00's would go through every page I could to learn what was coming out. I think Nintendo Force have done a rather nice job trying to keep the spirit of Nintendo Power alive.

@PlywoodStick in general I'm not opposed to the concept of new controls, some touch controls have worked well. Obviously in a sense a mouse is a type of motion control, and to a degree light guns are as well. But like you say in the vast majority of games they just arn't helpful

@Yorumi - There is a difference between disagreeing with something and voicing one's opinions and the "oh my gosh the world is about to end because Nintendo isn't doing what "I" want" type of comments. And sometimes things can go too far.

I wasn't referring to you or anyone in particular on this thread or even this site. Perhaps Syrek24 did go a little too far but the main point is valid. Whatever side of the argument you sit on sometimes things can get toxic. And no, it's not alright to make insults, you are right on that.

BTW - I actually agree with "this is a low graphic, poor frame rate rehash of starfox 64". This much is true but I disagree with the control scheme argument.

Yeah, I think I'll just post this one more time, because I can see a couple of people are trying real hard to make certain people drink some of that delicious Kool-Aid:

You know, in many ways this is a lot like Nintendo not allowing blood in the original SNES version of Mortal Kombat (as I see it. Admittedly, you have to squint to get the correlation). . . .

In that, if you REALLY wanted to, you could come up with whole bunch of [****] reasons why it was a good idea to not include the blood, to justify Nintendo's choice, to be at peace with the decision. You could even find ways to show how, somehow, the game was better because of it (protecting the kids . . . and whatever other junk). And, the fact is, many of those excuses/defences would be factually true (in terms of you not just making up stuff)—but that's really beside the point now, isn't it.

When you think about it. . . .

Your [impossible] situation here with Star Fox Zero is that you somehow believe people like me are going to drink that same Kool-Aid you are drinking in regards to its overall controls, the level of presentation and graphics, the level design, and whatever else. And, you believe that we're actually the ones in the wrong for not drinking it.

But, you know and I know, even Nintendo knew, that we all secretly (usually not so secretly) wanted that blood in Mortal Kombat on SNES—which is why we eventually got it in Mortal Kombat II on SNES.

And, of course, it is impossible to play any games on a Wii U unless you own one. In fact, it's impossible to know anything about Wii U, or make informed and accurate judgements about it, or just have an opinion on it, unless you own one.

@PlywoodStick I don't know, man: I like the motion controls in Splatoon at this point and find them to be pretty responsive, but I found wiimote-centric games like Trauma Center and Resi 4 almost impossible to play. The GamePad tilting motion controls really click with me in a way that pointer controls never did.

Guess we'll have to agree to disagree about the magnitude of hate surrounding SS's control scheme. Sucks thatcha hate it though, it's definitely ranking as my 2nd favorite Zelda and I found the controls to be quite immersive.

But dude, really... just flick the wrist. Just short, simple motions. No need for arm waving, standing up, none of that. If you have to move your arm at all, you are doing it wrong. Rest your arms on your lap/legs and just use your wrist... that's all ya gotta do. I find that a lot of people that tried motion controls and hate them... over-exaggerate the movements necessary to register the desired inputs.

But regarding your previous comment about immersion: The quotes I referenced were from a reviewer's opinion, based on his own personal gameplay experience. If he felt Zero's controls heightened the intensity, deepened the gameplay, and provided a greater sense of immersion (pilot to cockpit connection), who are you to say he's wrong to feel that way? Or that this reviewer doesn't understand immersion? You have a right to have and voice your own opinions on decisions a game developer chooses to make with their games... that's fine. But discrediting someone's opinion on a game they played and you haven't.... is simply demonstrating a biased opinion.

@Yorumi Your opinion of motion controls is irrelevant other than an indication of the bias you apply when you say NL said the controls were bad. You opened the comment with that. You projected your opinion on to someone else's text and made up an invalid conclusion before sharing it in the comments section as of it were fact. If you can improve on not doing that it will give your posts more credibility.

@Turbo857 I can question someone's statement all day long when it's using words completely incorrectly. The person is wrong, the way an arwing is made in this game is less immersive not more immersive and I'm not letting someone get away with just flat out making things up.

Couldn't i turn this back on you though? Who are you to question what I say about that quote.

@MarvinTheMartian I find this comment section fairly civil for the most part compared to say MyNintendoNews or some others.

@GH05T For me, if a game is getting in the neighborhood of 7s it usually means the visuals are good but controls, be it from the controls for the player or environment or both bring it down in enough sections that it hampers gameplay and overall enjoyment. It takes you out of the experience in a really frustrating way. My go to example of this is Castlevania: LoS1 (since that's all I played through the end). I won't elaborate since we are talking Star Fox Zero here.

From what I reading a 7-ish score, if the reviewer is honest with themselves, is about right; which means if you just gotta have a new Wii U game, because let's face it, the offerings on the table are close to dried up, or you just gotta have a new Star Fox to play no matter how the controls are then this is the game for you.

The game is a homage to the original N64 classic,it's not made to be anything more,it's easy for a reviewer to make comments like "Nintendo finally released the Star Fox game that I thought I wanted, but it leaves me wondering what place Fox McCloud has in today’s gaming landscape.",when the game was never intended to fit in with the modern (70th dull sequel of c.o.d franchise) it's just meant to deliver classic arcade Star Fox thrills.

@Ootfan98 He doesn't. Which makes his commitment to comment sections like these all the more bewildering. Anybody referencing or supporting the Polygon reviewer should be ashamed. A professional gaming journalist not giving time to any game they are supposedly reviewing should be dismissed. However , in the mess that is critical game reviewing , I'm not surprised. Polygon should sack him if they have any integrity. Obviously they haven't and they wont.

You could turn that question back on me if you'd like but I don't really see the point of it. I'm just a guy that knows bias when he sees it... and doesn't always let someone get away with making those kinds of statements. Bias'll ruin the credibility of anybody's statement on any subject... This is my way of trying to help.

You're discrediting a reviewer's opinion on a game he's actually played... because you're not willing to accept his opinion. It's almost as if you don't want to believe it's possible that someone can like a game that you're so ready to hate.

If you play a game that I like and you don't like it, I'm open minded enough to accept that you really didn't like the game for some reason... to each their own. It's just always a good idea to keep an open mind and be receptive toward other people's opinions especially when they've experienced something that you haven't.

@Turbo857 i'm not discrediting him liking the game, I'm discrediting what he's saying because what he's saying is factually wrong. You're using a bait and switch here. He can like it, but he can't say it's more immersive when it's not.

@Ralizah That's fine, one size doesn't fit all when it comes to controls. I'm just saying that pointing at something and moving the controller around a bit is usually more intuitive than the Wii U's take on basically using an improved version of the original PS3's boomerang DualShock 3 Six-Axis controls, which were almost universally panned. That said, I think the Zelda Quest and Metroid Arena controls from Nintendo Land were class acts which redeemed the control scheme, and I don't know why those controls weren't followed up on in future titles. (Except for Splatoon.) I think the Metroid controls from Nintendo Land probably would have worked better than what Miyamoto came up with for SF Zero.

@LetsGoRetro To be honest, I could not care less about your opinion, and I would do it again, to say what I want to say, regardless of your opinion. Sorry if that disappoints you. Don't waste your time any longer.

@PlywoodStick The Zelda game in Nintendo Land has absurdly accurate, responsive, and comfortable motion controls. I was amazed by it. In all honesty, had any Wii games controlled with that level of fluidity, I wouldn't have been so down on the Wii. They're the kind of controls games like Twilight Princess and especially Skyward Sword should have had.

@Kirk Glad you find it funny - humour doesn't appear to be your thing from your many posts on here. I'm certainly not a bruised fanboy , I will wait until I have tried the game before making my judgement. Like someone commenting earlier said , this is akin to a film journalist walking out of a film 10 minutes in and slating its plot , character development and length. If you are paid to review something surely you should put the time in to provide a worthy , reasoned critique ? If this was a game you were interested in , or had played and enjoyed , would you even quote Polygon ?

Regardless of him being paid, maybe it REALLY was that frustrating and annoying for him to play that he just couldn't bring himself to finish it? How much would they need to pay you to basically mentally and emotionally torture yourself (all things being relative)? Or, do you honestly think he's just playing us all like fools for ***** and giggles?

Just because he's a paid professional, that doesn't mean he has to put up what basically amounts to self abuse by forcing himself to play all the way through a game he is simply not enjoying at all (and I mean in a pretty extreme reaction kind of way).

And, if this was a game I personally enjoyed the odds are it wouldn't even sniffing anywhere near any review like this—certainly not on any of the major gaming sites—because I actually know genuinely good games when I see them. Not mediocrity that's convinced a bunch of the most hardcore and loyal fans that it's another great game from Nintendo.

Not that it's never happened that someone somewhere hated a game I liked.

@Kirk Do you honestly believe this reviewer found the controls so frustrating and annoying that he couldn't play enough of a 6 hour game to write a review ? Kids on Miiverse are saying the motion controls are easy and reviewers need to ' git gud '. It's all a bit Wonderful 101 / Kid Icarus / Splatoon in my opinion. I think the reviewer ( and Polygon ) knew the controversy ( R.I.P Prince ) surrounding the controls and this is merely clickbait / attention seeking.

Wow, come on. Seriously? Do me the honor and please enlighten me. How does a person "factually" prove that someone's gaming experience wasn't immersive, especially when said person hasn't played the game themselves? The fact that you can't see what's wrong that statement... is dumbfounding.

Immersion... to a degree... is subjective (unless we're talkin' VR). It's not something that should warrant a debate. I found that the motion controls in Punch Out Wii, SS, Zelda Battle Quest, Metroid Trilogy contributed to an immersive experience... for me. I've met others who didn't find their experience with these controls in those games to be immersive. Okay, so who's "factually" wrong in this instance?

@kingofthesofa Well, did he or did he not finish the game? And, did he or did he not state the reasons why he would not be playing the rest of the game? Did he or did he not go into pretty specific detail regarding his personal experience and all the issues he had with the game? Did his frustration come across pretty dang clearly in the non-review or did it not?

Am I to believe you actually believe he's just pretending for ***** and giggles or something here? That a reviewer on Polygon didn't finish his review of a main franchise Nintendo game, the first Star Fox game in a while at that, just because he knew it would get some extra clicks.

Or is that maybe more just what you'd like to believe so you don't have to accept there's maybe some pretty big issues with this game?

There's times where you'd be right to question what you are seeing and hearing in this world, and there's times where it just makes you look silly and slightly desperate, grasping at straws.

@Turbo857 have you not paid attention to why I said it's not immersive? Immersion has to do with contributing to the realism of the world. The examples you give are actions that mimic what the characters are doing, even if in a somewhat crude way. When link swings his sword you see his arm moving, when you do the same with a motion controller it's bringing your actions closer to reality.

Starfox is a game where you fly an aircraft and shoot down enemies. Fighter aircraft have fixed forward guns they're built that way because it's the best way to build a fighter. Do you really think fox is sitting in an arwing with a gamepad moving it around? If not how in hell is he controlling the arwing? If he's using a typical stick to control the craft how is he moving the guns?

The only answer is "because video games" and "it doesn't need to make sense" well then guess what? It's not immersive.

@Kirk That's the thing , these kids have only had the game a few hours. Other professional reviewers have finished the game despite it's ' broken ' controls , and also managed to write an actual review of the game. Do you normally regard Polygon reviews with esteem ? I can find a 10 / 10 review of Devil's third , does that mean it's definitely one of the best games in the world ? The fact that the game in question is Starfox and by Nintendo is of no relevance - I would still question the professionalism of the reviewer if it was any other game on any other system. There are plenty of smoke and mirrors in life , especially on the internet.

Gonna have to agree with Action again on this one. When you have to resort to using Metacritic to back up your arguments, your argument is already null and without merit. Want to form an opinion? Check with friends, watch videos, visit message boards, etc.. In other words, actually research it a bit. Reviews are more often than not written by people who simply don't have TIME to play the game at length and I've seen quite a few reviews that blatantly lie, underscore a game to get more hits, or were clearly written by someone who didn't beat the game. There's also the whole thing with sites being bought off via advertising dollars. In other words, most review sites CANNOT be trusted, there's too many things wrong with them. While it can be argued that it's a more reliable source, when you factor in the fact that review sites are a hive mind that tend to give a lot of the same scores, it becomes less reliable.

Metacritic has been around since the dawn of the Internet almost, and it was never relevant. Why do people suddenly care now? I certainly don't. Also, everything @Xenocity said needs to be read, as he hit the nail on the head.

With that all being said... I agree that the review reads like a 6 or a 7 but scores an 8 for being a flagship game. All the research I've done has led me to the same conclusion: The game is without a doubt going to be decent, but the controls may very well be an obstacle and the lame aesthetics do very little to help it. As it stands, it feels like a game meant to showcase the Wii U's Gamepad... If that's the case, it's about 4 years too late. The Wii U is likely entering it's final years and now it's way too late to sell the Gamepad. Few games really utilize it, starting now is a lost cause.

Maybe someday I'll give it a go, but for now it looks pretty meh to me.

@Onion Thing about the aesthetics is, from a rookie's perspective, if there was much more going on in the environment it would make it difficult to keep track of targets

@Yorumi Your idea of what immersion is has tickled me, thank you. Immersion for me is when the game I'm playing has absorbed me so well that I've almost forgotten I'm just playing a game. F1 games can do that for me where I'm just using an Xbox 360 controller, on a bog standard monitor, with the volume turned up - I'm so into nailing my line and listening to the engine to time my gear changes that I'm almost completely immersed. The fact that I'm not actually using a steering wheel, pressing pedals/paddles and feeling g-forces, is irrelevant. Immersion is a state of mind, it doesn't require physical imitation of the real thing.

Oh, trust me... I've read into your reasoning behind why you don't think the game's immersive, I just don't agree with your assessment. Immersion is about the level of engagement and connection between you and the game. The more immersed you are the more you feel like you're a part of the game, or "in" the game, rather than a "spectator".

Think you're taking this realism aspect a bit too seriously/literal. Like, this is Star Fox we're talking about here. Bipedal, talking animals that pilot vehicles... I don't think it's meant to be taken this seriously. I don't care what Fox is holding onto when he's sitting in a cockpit. It's not relevant. This isn't Metal Gear, COD, or Splinter Cell where details like these are more significant.

@Turbo857 you're basically arguing words have no meaning and that you can call literally anything immersive. That's not the way things work, though apparently it's been a thing on the internet for a while. Funny people are mad at me for saying the controls are bad, if words can mean anything how do you know what i mean by bad? Maybe I'm saying they're good, maybe by saying it's not immersive I'm actually saying it is. How do you have any idea what the words mean that I'm saying?

That's a good point, but it still seems like they could have polished some of the models a bit. I'd hardly think some better textures would be all that distracting, no? I don't normally care about graphical presentation at all but being part of a series known to have mind-blowing graphics, it doesn't look like a very significant leap forward in technology. Even the reviewer complains of this. While I still find the presentation to be charming and easy to look at, it still leaves that lingering doubt in my mind when I see graphics that look more like a Gamecube game. This is in addition to a myriad of other concerns such as control (which the review itself claims could be enough to deter potential players) and being too much of a retread. No online multiplayer (that I know of) and all sorts of small issues get in the way.

I've not played it as I've said, but it just doesn't grab my attention all that much. Far as I know, there's no demo either. Considering this is a game that requires such a hands-on experience to determine whether or not it's any good, I really think a demo would have done a lot to get some people on or off the fence.

@Yorumi There are moments in Star Wars - Ep.IV - A New Hope during the assault on the Death Star where the rebel pilots are getting tailed by Imperial pilots, and you see the rebel pilots throwing their heads for a glance over their shoulder, trying to get eyes on the threat. Star Fox Zero, while it doesn't allow to look backwards, it does allow you to look approx. 90 degrees to either side, plus 90 degrees up and down, so it really does take dogfighting immersion further than any other game I can think of. Stick controls on a joypad can't match the speed of doing it with the gamepad (hence the scheme is so popular on Splatoon), and once you've got the speed of movement, that you can't match with the same level of control with a stick, you begin to build that immersion, as you dart around looking for targets and danger in a way you just couldn't do so well without the gamepad.

So for me, it really doesn't matter if there are people who don't care for such action-immersion or not - this game gives me an experience I can't get anywhere else, and won't be able to until Virtual Reality devices have nailed fast head movement tracking and been applied to a decent dog-fighting game, and reached a price point I can stomach - all some way off I suspect.

@gcunit I"m struggling to understand what you're trying to say. Are you trying to say looking around is the equivalent of moving a cursor on screen? Are you talking about the lock on button in all range mode? Cause that's been a thing for like 20 years in space sims. It really sounds like you guys are jumping through all kinds of hoops and twisting yourselves into pretzels to claim something that is less immersive is more immersive.

Lol, I'll agree that all games are made with the intent on being immersive since games are inherently designed to be escapes/distractions from reality. But that degree of immersion is dependent on a game's interface and how the player responds to it.

What I'm getting from your comments is that your games probably need to be very closely based on reality in order for you to feel immersion... which again is fine - to each their own. Motion controls in a 3D game on your TV probably won't work for you but maybe VR will.

My advice is just don't use the elements that are required for you to feel immersed in a game as the gold standard or an absolute guideline to judge everybody else's immersive experiences.

@Turbo857 no you're not exactly getting it but you're getting closer. Realism to me isn't strictly related to the current world outside of games, it means realistic within the defined universe. When a sci-fi craft hovers without any obvious real world hover device(helicopter blades for example) I accept it as real because that universe has told me anti-grav technology exists. It's immersive when Harry potter does magic because in that universe magic exists.

When writers arbitrarily change the rules of their universe it tends to make the viewer upset. If they're going to lay down rules they need to follow them.

So in the case of starfox we know that despite being animals the people in that world interact with things basically like humans do. We know it uses similar laws of physics for the most part(certain allowances can be made for the sake of a game, for example hitting a solid object and going through it), and that are designed and behave mostly like real world aircraft though they have highly enhanced capabilities.

Given all that it means the arwings should have a joystick as the main control. Even if we say we can't draw that conclusion we would have to come up with a sufficient control device for an aircraft(I'd have to check some cutscenes in adventures and assault but I think we see joysticks in the arwings). That's why I asked how is fox controlling the arwing to move an independent gun and fly? The answer is he's not. That's why it breaks immersion.

@Yorumi Others have pointed this out, too- it would have made more sense if the Arwing had to move and aim in a frontward direction to be able to fire on a certain location (like every other Star Fox game with Arwing combat), while the Landmaster would pivot and shoot in just about any direction, since it has a swiveling turret and adjustable treads.

Maybe if the Arwing had some aesthetic and engineering design updates to create a new model of aircraft, it would be possible for it to have swiveling turrets and adjustable thrusters, but that didn't happen. Thus, it's awkward to see the Arwing perform in a way that defies it's design. I think it would have made more aesthetic and design sense to have a space flight Arwing (traditional Star Fox controls and feel), an atmospheric flight/bomber Arwing (Star Fox Zero controls, and maybe a name change), and the Landmaster (mix of traditional and SF Zero controls).

@Damo You'll be proud to know that your review is currently a prohibited page on McDonalds UK Wifi! NOT other pages on Nintendo Life, JUST your review. The official reason is for "violent content"! Perhaps they've been reading the comments?

Just wanted to throw my potentially valueless opinion out there. I did a run through of the game last night and really enjoyed it.

It certainly took a while to get used to the controls but the learning curve was worth it for me. I felt like I was really learning how to 'pilot' a ship rather than just pick up a controller. Anyone remember that nonsense Steel Battalion game

I didn't find myself irritated when I lost control or found myself unable to focus on two areas at once - I found it quite exhilarating to be honest. Looping over and around a tailing enemy whilst lining up a shot on the gamepad - or switching between vehicles on the fly was an experience that seems unique to this game. For that it deserves more praise than scorn.

This is only my opinion but I found it a hell of a lot of fun.

It does have issues. It's in no ways a perfect game. I personally would have preferred a new story which expands the setting and characters in original ways. I understand why they used this to 'reintroduce' and 'reboot' the world however. I'd be genuinely bummed out if this sells so poorly that we don't sequel. I think it deserves one.

Graphics aren't the game's finest points either - and from my play-through, I'd have preferred a greater leaning towards the on-rails flying sections. But those really are niggles. The points I've mentioned in no way disrupted my enjoyment of the game in any major way.

Again (capslocks for emphasis), THIS IS MY OPINION. I completely understand why someone more turned off motion-controls would really be disappointed. Which sucks I guess. But I've enjoyed the way this has been handled and think they'd have to reengineer the entire gameplay to make it work on a traditional pad as well. I'm glad they've stuck with the method they've used but I genuinely understand why people would be turned off by it.

But for anyone wanting to try a new and challenging control system that uses motion controls to pilot starship dogfights... it has my recommendation (which means nothing I know).

Sorry for the insanely long post but reading through all of these comments actually dampened my excitement a little - and I wanted any of you who have yet to boot it up to know that Nintendolife's 8 seems perfectly reasonable. Fun game and good times.

A lot of the negative comments on this review are hilarious. Oh Noes! Nintendolife didn't agree with our preconceived notions that the game would be complete rubbish! Therefore we must keep going on about Metacritic and 1 random idiot who wouldn't even do the job he was paid to do and finish the game (which apparently would only take a few hours even if you have issues with the controls) in order to push our agenda! Nintendo fans must be biased!

OK

So what makes all the positive reviews wrong and all the negative reviews right?

Nintendolife isn't the only professional body that have given Star Fox Zero a positive review, there's also Games Master Magazine, Game Central Metro, Cheat Code Central, The Games Machine, Game Rant and God Is A Geek amongst others.

Why must we take the negative reviews as gospel but treat all the positive reviews as if they're biased or wearing rose tinted glasses in some way?

Pathetic. Some people have just not wanted to enjoy this game ever since the first footage was released and concerns were raised about the Gamepad controls. That's pretty much all there is to it. The same way that Pixels wasn't a fantastic movie but certainly wasn't the worst released last year, yet it became the 'cool' movie to bash because people who hadn't seen it took a dislike to the trailer.

People that don't want to accept that a Nintendo game has serious issues are the people that glorify any review that, even though it admits some of those issues, writes a benevolent conclusion and a generous score, like this one; while any reviewer that states facts and gives a score that is consistent with the the text and the gaming experience, it's an "idiot". People commenting that the valid review is the review that defend the thesis of Nintendo's well doing are right, while people that criticise the game's flaws and bring up other reviews that are not that benevolent, are "dumb" and "negative" people that don't like video games. I'm amused by such a basic and childish behaviour.

There are lies here about Polygon's review, probably because people did not even read it. First, the "review" is not a "review", as the reviewer admitted that he could not complete the game. He could have lied like many reviewers usually do, said that he beat the game and consequently make his text a review and write a good, mixed or bad score and then submit it to the metascores websites (there are several, not only Metacritic). Besides, he admits that this rarely happens, if he gave up that quickly he wouldn't be a reviewer, in my honest opinion.

And he is not against on-rails shooter as people have stated here. If you read the article, it's clear that he has played Star Fox Zero, he gives a lot of details about controls, sound, visuals, level design and more, that you can only know if you play the game. Besides, he stated the few good things he found while playing.

@VanillaLake I've read that in it's entirety. I've also been playing Star Fox Zero myself since I received it through the mail yesterday. It's too early for me to give a detailed opinion so far but I'm personally enjoying it despite a few minor issues. Just because I'm not screaming from the rooftops about how poor the controls are to fit in with your preconceptions doesn't make me some kind of rabid Nintendo fanboy, just in the same way that you admitting earlier on that you like Pandora's Tower much more than either Xenoblade Chronicles or The Last Story doesn't mean you have to make an issue out of it's many faults despite it reviewing worse than either of those two games and only sitting at 73 overall on Metacritic.

You can't have it both ways.

What I don't understand is why you and some others seemingly hold one massive negative write up of a game (which is still a 'review' of sorts despite not having a score) as being some beacon of truth and honesty on the internet when there's plenty of other more positive reviews out there? So this one guy is right and all the others are biased nostalgia clouded fanboys? I didn't think much of The Last Of Us when it first launched, does my single opinion count for more than all the other people who loved it and gave it Game Of The Year awards? I suppose it's your prerogative if you want to stick to your guns though in order to push your agenda just as much as it's my prerogative to dismiss it and focus on the people who've actually bothered to give the game a score, even if it was a low one. We'll have to agree to disagree on this issue I'm afraid.

@TromaDogg No, the thing is that I haven't made an issue of people defending this game, the problem is why other people can't express themselves here without being insulted. Diversity is an intrinsic part of a comments section.

TromaDogg "What I don't understand is why you and some others seemingly hold one massive negative write up of a game (which is still a 'review' of sorts despite not having a score) as being some beacon of truth and honesty on the internet"

@Project_Dolphin If critical reviews are 100% subjective, with no objective criteria at all, then what sets them apart from random user reviews from places like GameFAQ's? If that's the case, I may as well treat the experience of the professional writer as being no more worthy of notice than random posters with no credentials at all. There has to be a balance of objective rules and subjective musing to set critical reviews apart, if we think of them as being more trustworthy than a conglomerate of random writeups. Otherwise, there's no way to learn from the history of gaming journalism, it simply then becomes something that briefly appears and just as quickly sinks into dust, without any lasting impacts or sentiment.

And you only used the conclusion to reinforce your opinion, instead of using both the mixed issues and the oddly positive conclusion to put it all in perspective. Just as I used the various issues which Damo noted, without putting them in full perspective of this review full of mixed feelings. So yeah, we're both guilty of cherry picking.

Think it's pretty safe to say that my mantra in these comments sections for articles on StarFox Zero, up to this point, have always been "just give the game a shot first" before judging it too harshly.

Now, if you played the game and temporarily abandon your preconceived notions for how Arwings were traditionally designed and controlled, you'll find that your question on how Fox is controlling an Arwing's movement while shooting in Zero is answered. Shortly after booting up the game and starting the tutorial you see that Fox is in fact holding two joysticks to control the Arwing's movement and fire lasers.

Granted, I've only played through the first 2 stages. But from what I played so far... it feels undeniably StarFox, only now my firing range has expanded. I've controlled the Walker and flown in the Arwing and I'm not having an issue with the controls. The controversy surrounding Zero's controls, in my opinion, is absurd and not justifiably even close to the first unveiling of Toon Link or even when Metroid became a first person shooter. To quote @LaVelle, my experience thus far with Zero has been exhilarating and refreshing. To those who consider themselves true Star Fox fans, this game deserves your attention.

I mostly focus on the TV and then use the Gamepad for aiming "when I need to". So far, I'm not really understanding the hate that I've read in negative reviews. I'll be sure to revisit those reviews after I finish the game.

@Turbo857 "Shortly after booting up the game and starting the tutorial you see that Fox is in fact holding two joysticks to control the Arwing's movement and fire lasers."

See I thought you might say that and it doesn't help at all. If that's the case then why are we not flying the arwing with two sticks? That would be the immersive way, by controlling it a different way it's less immersive.

I have standards. The game is low graphics, can't even maintain a steady frame rate despite that, has bad controls that I know I don't like, and has content stripped out. They're WAY overcharging for this game. I don't just blindly support a game because nintendo made it. If nintendo wants me to spend $60 for a game they can put some real effort into it and deliver $60 worth of game.

Now that many of us have played the game and revealed that it's quite good and the debate about the controls is absurd, I thought I would check in with the comments section of this review.

Yep, it's what I expected. The same people are still railing on the game, despite STILL not even having played it yet. Even worse, the straws they are now grasping at to support their "arguments" are borderline psychotic at this point.

And apparently we're STILL citing that one Polygon review as gospel even though it's becoming increasingly apparent that the writer of it is largely incompetent. I'm trying to put myself in his shoes to understand why he had such trouble with the controls, I really am. But I just don't understand it. It's not very difficult.

Oh well, you weirdos can continue your bizarre crusade against the game. I don't care. I have a great new game to play.

"The first time you play through Star Fox Zero, you will inevitably curse the controls. They seem to present an almost insurmountable obstacle when it comes to enjoying the game, and at certain points - the final boss battle in particular - you may even be close to giving up entirely. However, as those opening hours slip by (like Star Fox 64, you can "finish" Star Fox Zero in the space of an evening) and you become accustomed to the foibles of the controls, it just clicks."

"Herein lies Star Fox Zero's biggest challenge, not only to the player but to its chances of commercial and critical success - there's no denying that the setup takes a lot of getting used to."

"Star Fox Zero is the same kind of experience [as Splatoon], but the fact that you're having to actually look at the GamePad to aim is a key difference; in Splatoon, you were effectively using the motion controls as a third analogue input while maintaining a rocksteady gaze on the main TV screen, but here you have to constantly switch your eyes from the main TV to the pad, which is undoubtedly jarring to begin with."

"As we've already mentioned, it's possible to play through Star Fox Zero within a day of getting it, although we will say that the additional challenge of mastering those controls does make it slightly less of a cake walk than the N64 version."

2--- It also talks about the lacking multiplayer mode:

"With such an excellent dogfighting component it's a real shame that Nintendo wasn't able to replicate the competitive multiplayer mode seen in Star Fox 64 - online battles would have been glorious - but it hasn't totally ignored those who like to play together. A local co-op mode allows one player to steer the Arwing and shoot a rather weedy (and non-upgradable) laser while the other is in charge of the main blasters via the GamePad, which have a lot more scope for precise aiming. It's an interesting distraction from the main game and illustrates just how effective the motion controls can be when used correctly, but it feels curiously lacking and is - in truth - little more than an amusing novelty."

3--- The mixed visuals:

"some of the enemy models are incredibly simplistic and the levels are, by and large, lacking in detail."

"While it might not sizzle your eyeballs in the same way the N64 version did back in the late '90s, the fact that it is such a close match to that game will be enough for many fans, however."

"ship and level designs have been carried over to such an extent that you have to ponder if Nintendo ever considered simply renaming it "Star Fox 64 HD"

5--- The sound issues:

"With so much audio coming from the GamePad we found it quite hard to balance the volume with the TV sound"

6--- And yet the final conclusion is this:

"Arguably the last great Wii U exclusive"
"Score: 8"

/What THIS review tells me about Star Fox Zero is that Star Fox 64 is similar and more accessible, but we should be eager to adapt to this newer version with similar level design, clunkier controls and updated yet mixed visuals and sound.

@Project_Dolphin it never works spending so much time telling people to stop doing something but the same thing could apply to you. You're mad that someone in commenting on the review and say they shouldn't do that and leave it. Well why are you commenting on a comment, why not just leave it at that?

Course it is always funny how the only people who others spend so much time trying to get them to stop posting are those who arn't wholly supportive of nintendo.

Heh-heh, admittedly, I had a feelin' you'd come back with the popular twin analog stick control complaint. Looks like we're really getting to know each other.

That my friend, is a question best left for Nintendo to answer. However, I do have a few ideas what might've been behind their decision to leave out the right analog as a possible option for controlling the aiming reticule.

#1. The Gamepad's motion controls are not just a substitute for Fox's 2nd operating joystick... it's also for controlling his perspective within the cockpit and this stick in tandem. Obvious, I know, but Ninty's goal was probably to make players feel like they were Fox inside the cockpit and wanted to use moving the Gamepad itself to aid in that connection. In my experience, I believe they succeeded in this department. Also, using the right stick for barrel rolls, braking, accelerating, U-turns and loops feels natural and surprisingly comfortable.

#2. People use Splatoon and other 3rd/1st person shooters as examples for common twin analog stick control but there's a notable difference when comparing these to Star Fox Zero. In 1st-3rd person shooters, the right stick usually controls your perspective on the TV. That wouldn't be completely true for Zero since your controlling multiple vehicles throughout the game and the right stick controls your perspective on the "2nd screen". So, Ninty might've thought that analog stick aiming might be disorienting for players expecting a right analog press to "naturally" shift your perspective on the TV. Or they might've thought the immersive feeling of being a pilot might've been broken by using the right stick to aim and exclusively control your perspective on just the Gamepad's screen. Tough to say but since this is the first flight game that uses 2-screens, they probably wanted to prioritize the control scheme present in Zero.

Sorry, but I've yet to curse the controls. I actually fell in love with them and was very eager to try them out when first turning on the console.

I'm telling you, the negativity surrounding the controls of this game is greatly overexaggerated. With all the hate, I was expecting this to be virtually unplayable and barely enjoyable but so far it's quite the contrary. I have a hard time believe that the learning curve will be that high for most players.

@Turbo857 you're still trying to bait and switch. The control method is less immersive, period. You keep arguing maybe they chose this or that cause it was a better option. Which is weird considering they went with a definitively worse control method but still that doesn't in any way change the fact that the control method is less immersive. Immersive controls and the quality of the controls are two different things. SS's controls suck but they're more immersive than normal controller. In the case of starfox the controls are both less immersive and bad.

@Turbo857 Sure, I believe you, you sound true, unlike others here. However, we have to admit many people are having issues with the controls. I'm honestly glad that you don't and are enjoying the game. Your experience sounds genuine.

@Project_Dolphin You still don't get it, the things I selected are relevant enough, whole paragraphs! But it's pointless trying to make you see the facts, you still would manipulate everything!

@Project_Dolphin You're trying to claim it's against the rules to disagree with a reviewer. I've shown nothing but respect to other posters, refused to engage in attacks, insults or telling them to shut up. Yet you seem so threatened by anyone not praising nintendo you want them silenced by moderators. That's what seems to face those of us who do not fall in love with every single last nintendo game to ever be released.

Liking some nintendo games apparently isn't enough, people believe that if you don't like any one of their games you deserve to be modded off the board, and plenty of people find no problem with insults, attacks, trolling, and flaming those who dare to say something negative about nintendo.

That's a form of extreme tribalism and it's what makes the internet so bad.

@Project_Dolphin You really sound like a dictator, an overly enthusiastic Nintendo fan that read all users' comments and tell those not 100% supportive of Nintendo to stop posting (that's exactly what you have told us to do). It's like you were a Nintendo CPU made with censorship purposes. If you could you would ban us (you asked a moderator to ban @Yorumi earlier). Do you think people is taking your opinion as valuable acting like that?

Picked my copy up today and can't wait to play it tomorrow. I had no idea that the game was releasing with cases for each game, Star Fox Zero and Star Fox Guard. For some reason I thought they would be in the same case. But I'm not complaining.

I think all @Project_Dolphin is asking for is the opinions of those who have actually experienced the game themselves and are qualified to give an opinion. Rather than three or so people who gang up on any rational voice who dares step into the conversation.

@Project_Dolphin@Vandy Well, you two have to accept the fact that every user has an opinion and all of them have the right to say it. Their posts are more valuable than posts telling everyone else to shut up. Intelligent people won't take your comments seriously when you are extremely biased.

Most users here have read the review and many others, they can think by themselves, and they all can post about a game whether they have played it or not. You have no right to tell people to stop talking and you only dare to do it because you are anonymous here, but the way people read you won't be any positive, even if they are enjoying the game.

The problem here is that you don't, truly, have an opinion about the game. You have no merit to any of your claims because it's all second-hand. You have no personal experience with the game that you are attempting to discredit.

If we took your approach, we might as well just find ONE guy to be the sole reviewer of video games and then every other reviewer just copies and pastes that review without even bothering to play the game themselves.

I can only say "maybe" because I don't work for Nintendo nor am I personally acquainted with anyone on their development teams. So I can't speak for them or their motivations behind their game design choices. I can only speculate.

Now, I really love SS's controls and I like them better than the controls present in every other Zelda game... and I have beaten them all (except CD-I Panasonic ones). I'm not just talkin' about the swordplay. I dig the inventory/potion selections, shield bashing, sword blastin', bow aiming/firing... I just love it. If you hate them... ok but they sucked "for you". SS controls sucking is not a fact just your opinion based on your experience.

Now you and I don't agree on some issues, and that's cool... but I do enjoy reading your comments because they display legitimate reasoning behind your opinions and raise some good issues. But... this thing about immersion... ya gotta let it go.

When we started debating, I didn't play Zero... all I can tell naysayers was to chill and wait 'til you get your hands on the game before jumping to conclusions and hanging on the words of every negative review. But now that I've played it... I can tell you... without a shadow of a doubt that Zero provides a more immersive experience than any Star Fox before it. But again, this is my opinion and immersion is a state of mind. I know motion controls can break immersion for people who hate them... okay. But you can't sit there and say it's a fact that the controls are not immersive. I played Zero and for me they are indeed very immersive, so your statement my friend... is simply not true.

True, I don't discredit the experiences some people have had adjusting to the controls but I think some reviewers didn't give this game a fair chance. Also, ya gotta tell me how you post emojis on this site.

@Project_Dolphin but you're mad that someone presents info backing up why they think what they do about a review. You're assigning some motive to it but it's just people pointing out all the negative in the review and wondering why it scored so high. And for that you're asking mods to ban people.

It's made worse by the fact that you're upset to the point of requesting modding over that, but seemingly have no problem with other posters literally insulting commenters, flaming and trolling. It heavily detracts from any credibility you could have when you seem to have more problem with certain opinions than actual bad behavior.

I do have my opinion about the game because I have read many reviews, and I'm a player who is experienced enough to know what to expect from a game. Isn't that the purpose of a review in the first place? Funnily, this Nintendo Life review is so clear about the game's issues that it's impossible to be mistaken.

As I have already said, what this review tells me about Star Fox Zero is that Star Fox 64 is similar and more accessible, but we should be eager to adapt to this newer version with similar level design, clunkier controls and updated yet mixed visuals and sound.

"I heard the Beatles are experimenting with a new sound for their upcoming record. I haven't heard it yet myself, but I hate it and this is an extreme departure from what they are known for. It sucks. That is a FACT. Plain and simple that's the TRUTH. In fact, I asked my uncle Joe who asked his uncle Larry who knows a guy who knows a guy who's heard the album and that guy says it's bad. So from all this information provided and all of this capitalization, I can confirm that the new album is garbage and any true fan of the Beatles should avoid it."

@Turbo857 Well, I don't know if you know this, but the first emoticons were made by using punctuation signs, for example, a smile is : and ), a wink is ; and ), and you have many more like : and O, : and ( So you have to use this classic way of making them, and you get a "modern" design.

@Project_Dolphin Aww, I'm flattered that you singled me out... But there are several other people throughout the comments who also thought the same thing. So the "reads like a 7/10" thought isn't a one hit wonder. Care to tell every one of those people the same thing you told me about making an absurd suggestion in post #558? We're almost to #600 now, the party's only just begun!

Also, there have been various publications in the past that have based part of their score on a "Fun Factor" rating. GamePro was one such magazine, back in the print gaming magazine heyday. However, they didn't use raw fun factor as a skew to bring a title's total score up higher, it was just one piece of the puzzle. I've seen some people use "fun factor" to lift the final score up in GameFAQ's reviews, but they're not professional writers who get paid to write those reviews. Well, you did basically say before that there's no quantifiable difference between the professional and amateur, so I guess that makes sense in your mind.

Surprise, surprise, they're positive. And the people who bothered to take the time to actually write a review of it addressed the fact that the gaming press is largely incompetent and biased in regards to motion controls.

Three words come into my head nearly 600 comments deep on this page."let", "it" and "go". Imagine you got jumped by 10 dudes on your way home tomorrow and ended up a vegetable, do you want the world to remember you by how much you whinged about a control scheme in a video game you've never played? That'd be quite the legacy....

It's awesome! Seriously, I love it. The controls are a little tricky at first but they're FUN, and you can do so much more than you could with the old control scheme.

The game is pure gold. Looks so beautiful in HD too. I've waited so long to play a Star Fox with gorgeous HD visuals.

This is the Star Fox I've always wanted. It's perfect. I love the complexity of controlling the Arwing- specifically flicking L analog down and R analog up to loop (can also press X) and the inverted flight controls.

Idk, I can't promise people will for sure enjoy the game, but, it gets Jaxon's Seal of Approval for sure. So anyone who has not already decided to dislike the game without playing it, I advise giving it a chance. I think this has been blown way out of proportion.

@Vandy Unfortunately, user reviews on Metacritic are virtually useless most of the time, because it's often just a game of people posting 10's and 0's in an attempt to cancel each other out. Which is exactly what happened to SF Zero, as well. All in all, it still ended up balancing out to mid 70's anyways, since 0's skew the score down so much; and in response, users posted all those 10's in positive reviews just to bring the total score up. Almost every time, there's no structure that Metacritic users even try to impose upon themselves. I usually just go to a place like GameFAQ's for people who are more likely to try to actually formulate a decent review, with self-imposed critical criteria.

Personally, I think that whole Metacritic argument earlier in this comment section was an exercise in going down a rabbit hole, because Metacritic today is a field rife with money changing hands and competing interests. It's not like it used to be 15 years ago, when professionalism and some level of objectivity in critical reviewing was highly valued. Those have been thrown out the window at this point. I've long since thrown my hands up on that situation.

I wouldn't bother dwelling on it at this point, it's almost a decade late to be doing that now.

...And yes, people like SF Zero because of Nintendian psychic mind control.

I'm sick of this so called gaming community. That whole acting like criticizing makes you the better fan, that one is only telling those "fanboys" the "truth" etc. It's not about fun at all. That's why I try to distance myself more and more. Last gen I wasn't going on gaming news sites at all. I didn't know how much which system sells, any problems they have etc. And thinking about it, it was much more fun than being in the know.

I would like to see a prequel to Star Fox to explain the very beginning like Andross' origins, why he was banished, introducing the background of James McCloud, Peppy Hare and Pigma Dengar. That would be totally cool!

@Xenocity Kind of a shame how even rail shooters are criticized for lacking freedom. I've not played 64 personally, it just never found its way to me. I did play Kid Icarus Uprising however, which I understand was, at a time, supposed to be a Star Fox title. It was a blast for the roller coaster mentality and flashy visuals, and I expect this will be more or less the same. That said, rail shooters rely on spectacle quite heavily, and it might have paid to go a little beyond the N64 art style to fit that.

@PlywoodStickI don't know if this is supposed to be a sarcastic remark or not, I guess the smiley would indicate that it isn't, but it's actually the truth. I didn't even know all the terms people like to throw around. How many actually know what they mean? Throwing around CPU power or talking about old architecture without knowing that their favourite console uses even older one? It's almost funny. Almost. I didn't know about the success of the Wii, about WiiWare game size limitations, about the 600 Dollar PS3 you're supposed to get a second job for or the RRoD of the 360. I didn't even go online with any console until the Wii U. I didn't know that people don't like the PS controllers. I never had a problem with any controller. I just get used to them.

I hardly come to this site anymore. Usually only when reviews drop, just out of curiosity. But this comment section is just nasty. And they are the usual suspects.Of course the author of the review is biased. Who isn't? Everyone has preferences. And of course he might be more lenient or whatnot because he understands the design philosophies etc. as a long time fan. Did you people throw such a fit when a reviewer basically stated that he would prefer to play the gritty western RPG as opposed to the cute platformer he was made to review?But hypocrisy seems to be quite common in the gaming community. I have seen my share of really ridiculous things.

@Xenocity You're not wrong, my Dad still wishes I'd watch more live action shows over Animation, or play more mature games. I'm a Adult now, and until Nintendo games become unfun I'm fine. Anywho 8/10 seems fair, I thoroughly enjoyed the game on the neutral path I can't wait to try for the medals and the other paths and getting gaurd packaged with it is a bonus

It seems the community has become so politically correct nowadays, that a game has to pass a checklist of verification before people will even CONSIDER considering it as a possibility.

For example- game has gyro controls, automatic disqualification. Game is horrible, rants ensue. Or, game doesn't have online, automatic disqualification. Game is horrible and rants ensue. Or, dialog was changed during localization. Automatic disqualification. Game is horrible, boycotts ensue.

It's crazy.

And not to write off those concerns as if they don't hold weight, because they do. But it's to such extremes nowadays. There's no grey area. There's no, "I would have preferred an alternate control scheme but this was still just as fun." There's no "I wish they wouldn't be so heavy handed with localization but it's still very enjoyable." None of that.

Nowadays if people can scrape together even one minor offense to lay charge against a game, all hell and damnation breaks loose. I've seen entire franchises get canned and people didn't complain as much. And it's not like the controls are inherently bad. It would be one thing if, ya know, it was unresponsive or lagged when you aimed. But that's not the case. We're talking a solid, responsive control scheme that actually offers more versatility than the old setup.

The only issue is people don't want change. How did people who owned a Wii make it through 6 years of 100% motion controlled games- shaking nunchucks and wagging Wiimotes, yet won't even consider trying this game to even see if they like it. And not to mention the fact the control scheme is not gimmicky either. There's no shaking or rattling or wagging- it's straight gyro/analog hybrid- and is responsive and precise as your skill allows.

I could understand if the controls were actually BAD- that was my concern. But I'm not gonna write off a good control scheme just because it's not the exact same one we used in 1996.

And again, I understand those who complain there is no alternative. I too think that was a mistake on Nintendo's behalf. But it's not worth getting angry to the point of ranting and boycotting when the game is good, it's fun and the controls work.

@JaxonH Thanks for responding I agree, personally believe some of the problems would disappear of some people would try before they buy, but rental places are so rare lately. When I first started playing I was fumbling all over the place, but just like the controls on Kid Icarus, Wonderful 101, and Splatoon it was a learning curve I could appreciate. Motion controls are probably here to stay so let's just get used to it, if I wasn't used to them, I would had hated Legend of Zelda skyward Sword, or any motion exclusive game. I hated the motion controls on Twilight Princess because it felt like it wasn't made for it, it wasn't till HD that I could appreciate the game, because motion controls weren't being forced other than gyroscopic aiming (which works BTW really well).

That being said motion controls on This game are very soild, and it gives me a tactical advantage over hard to see enemy's and Andross was actually a challenge in a good way, it felt rewarding in Walker form to dodge his fist, and take potshots at his hands from DIRECTLY ABOVE ME SO COOL.It is a really good game.

@VanillaLake As I said, we'll have to disagree to disagree. I'm still wondering why you give Pandora's Tower a free pass (even going so far as to say you prefer it to Xenoblade Chronicles and The Last Story) despite it's middling reviews and Metacritic score though, whereas in the case of Star Fox Zero (which has had some more favourable reviews than Pandora's Tower got) you feel that they warrant you avoiding the game altogether.

@JaxonH I can only agree. So far, I'm having a lot of fun with it and aiming and shooting on the Gamepad with gyro controls remind me of the good old days of playing the original Star Wars arcade game with the yoke controller, and feels just as fast and responsive. The controls are not 'bad' they are just different to the norm....I can remember people complaining that they'd rather play Kid Icarus Uprising with 2 analogue sticks wheres I can't see how that would be anywhere near as fast and accurate or enjoyable at all, but it was enough to put a lot of people off even trying it. From when the very first footage was released and the motion controls were showcased, it was clear that a negative portion of the internet had a very clear agenda to complain and not even give the game a chance, and were going to cling to every bad review they could find as justification for them not having to admit that they just might be wrong.

Speaking of Star Wars, imagine just how dull and formulaic it would have been had it launched in arcades with the traditional control set up of the time, a joystick and a couple of fire buttons. Sure, it would have still been fun but the yoke controller really immerses you and gives you the feeling of being there, and makes for a memorable experiences. Often, change is good.

@TromaDogg Yeah, but remember I never said Pandora's Tower is the better game. That game got lower reviews because it's linear and has not so much content compared to, let's say, Xenoblade Chronicles, which is an absolutely huge game. If Pandora's Tower was a half-caked game with broken controls, I would say it, but it's not. This example I gave was only because somebody told me why a mixed reviewed game would not be good for somebody. What I was trying to explain is that you can like any game, but you can't lie about it. So, in this case, people can like Star Fox Zero, even if it's only because it has been released on Wii U and not anywhere else. Change Fox and company for other characters, release this game on PS4 and Xbox One and every Nintendo fan here would be mocking it and saying how low Sony or Microsoft has gone, how bad controls are (if PS4 and Xbox One had something like the GamePad), how mediocre the visuals are, etc.

Anyone can like Star Fox Zero but to say that the controls are not unneccessary complicated and frustrating, to say Zero is better than Star Fox 64 (3D) is a lie. The majority of reviewers and players admit that, but only the overly enthusiastic fans will not, because it's a Nintendo game that has been published by Nintendo for a Nintendo console. People not seeing that are not seeing the truth. Those enthusiastic fans would mock it if it was a Sony or Microsoft game. And me, I am a Nintendo fan but most of all I am not biased.

In the middle of moving but played for about an hour before putting the game away. I didn't feel put off by the controls. I'll update this with a better take on it once I can get some real playtime in but as it stands I'm feeling like this is the star fox that I, as a non star fox fan, was waiting for.

@VanillaLake Yeah, that's the thing. If everything in this game were reskinned and renamed into some generic property, but most of what is here were still intact, and it used the PS3/4 Six Axis (or whatever they would use these days), people would be comparing it to Lair (remember that one?) in space. 6 and 7 scores galore. Even the way the Gamepad is used in SF Zero is just an improved, dual screen version of those old Lair Six Axis controls.

Which, may I add, contributed towards sinking early PS3 sales and further popular use of Six Axis, while making the all range mode previously seen in Star Fox 64 seem like a confusing nuisance when used on a wider scale. Surprise, surprise, even the Star Fox series has to limit itself to achieve good results with all range mode thus far. Miyamoto failed to fix that 10-year old problem with SF Zero.

The Star Fox name and identity is the barrier between greatness and average mediocrity here. And yet, as Shakespeare said, what is in a name?

And what favour are doing these raging Nintendo knights in shining armour, anyway? What favour are doing to players, to Nintendo's future, to Nintendo's reputation? I see why so many people make fun of Nintendo fans now, because of these noisy fanatics.

Pretty much this. Fanboys are more detrimental to a publisher than anything else because they defend and justify even mediocrity. I'm sure SF Zero is a fun game but I'm not seeing a 60 dollar game, I'm seeing a 20 dollar digital download game. If this were a movie, it'd go straight to video and never make it to theaters.

Simply put, this is not a big step forward for Starfox. Starfox fans are so thirsty, they're eating up what is essentially a retread of Starfox 64 with confusing, tacked on controls and mediocre visuals that look like they're from a gen or two ago.

The sad part is that people who defend it are doing Nintendo more harm than good. Nintendo knows they have fanatics that eat up crap. That doesn't do anyone any good at all. The Nintendo community as a whole seems to reject any level of critical thinking unless it's aimed at Sony or Microsoft. If you mention that a new Nintendo game like Federation Force or Starfox Zero looks like crap, you'd better be ready to deal with a ****storm.

@PlywoodStickI would rather an honest score by the reviewer. In some cases they were obviously thinking about the future of their website or publications success due to ad revenue. In other cases they actually liked a crap game making the review worthless to me no matter the reason.

So either way a review is never as good as a rental. Demos don't really cut it either. Take Monster Hunter, a series I love. If my only exposure was the recent demos I would never have give the series a chance. Other games have great demos but when you play the full game and realize there is no progression in difficulty or gameplay.

I haven't played Star Fox Zero yet, I might hate it or think it's the best thing ever but I find it hilarious that people that haven't played the game yet are saying it doesn't look like an 8 out of 10. I think that's what Damo thought of it though. He can still think it's great if I love it or hate it.

@Onion I totally agree with you. They are happy with any critical thinking aimed at Sony or Microsoft, but they want people to be brainless when we are talking about Nintendo. They are not doing Nintendo's reputation any favour. I refuse becoming a brainless person that buys anything that Nintendo offers me as a Wii U and 3DS owner.

As somebody has said, to see gameplay videos and reading dozens of reviews and users' impressions is more than enough for having my own opinion. The issues of this game are not only the controls but the gameplay, visuals, level design, sound and length. I think I'll stick to Star Fox 64 3D until the next great Star Fox game is released. I'm not paying €50 for this half-baked unpolished rushed experiment.

Release this on PS4 or Xbox One with a different skin and gyroscope controls and all those Nintendo knights would admit how mediocre the game is.

@SetupDisk There are so many brutally honest professional and users' reviews out there. There are gameplay videos. There is more than enough for any experienced player to have an opinion. I have read many reviews where the player really wanted to like the game, but he could not, he was not really enjoying and felt that the controls were an unnecessary gimmick.

@VanillaLake
That's nice but how does that make Damo's review invalid? Plus any experienced gamer thinking they can tell how fun a games is by watching a gameplay video is amazing to me. Dying Light looked terribly boring in videos but I am loving it so far. Same with Dark souls gameplay videos.

Not at all, but I also haven't seen you go out of your way to attack critics of the game, either. There's a difference between liking something and going out of your way to make it sound flawless and attempting to piss all over the opinion of anyone who says otherwise.

I agree that playing something really is the ultimate deciding factor, but until you play something, impressions are all you have. I doubt too many people are willing to play something that looks bad to them from the start.

With that said, sooner or later I will probably try Starfox Zero, but right now I'm not seeing a game that's worth the asking price. I'l wait a while first, maybe grab it when it's cheaper.

The Nintendo bias is part of the reason we are mocked as a fanbase by other fanbases. Nintendo fans are oft seen as crazed fanboys/fangirls who eat up everything Nintendo dumps out for us. Take any other franchise and do to it what Nintendo has done with Federation Force for example. Take Dark Souls, strip away the dark atmosphere, make it an online game, and make the characters chibi. The firestorm would be almost comical.

Nintendo does it and many people apparently believe that's A-Ok. Same sorta deal with Starfox, Nintendo gets special treatment for being Nintendo, apparently.

Now I just need to make a reference to Kool Aid and I can sound more like Kirk!

@SetupDisk Funny that you mention Monster Hunter on this topic... I still remember when it first came out on PS2. Most critical reviewers didn't understand the particular type of "action rpg (sort of) monster hunter" niche genre of Monster Hunter when it was new, so it was slapped with 5's, 6's, and 7's galore.

Meanwhile, it was consistently getting 8's and 9's by users who gave it a chance. I, too, gave it a chance. And it was one of the most fun experiences I've ever had, and put over 1000 hours into it. Surprise, surprise, once critical reviewers caught wind that it was becoming popular, they suddenly started giving out similarly high scores out of nowhere for the sequels. They committed a complete 180 degree turnabout from how they treated the original, just because of a change in perspective.

So I say don't discount others, thinking that just because they don't give Star Fox Zero a chance, they haven't ever given anything new a chance. I've been around long enough that I can see SF Zero for what it is compared to past titles. It's not something new. It's something that tries to redo things that came before. It doesn't match up to it's direct predecessors, and it's more akin to Lair on the PS3 with dual screens. People are just being fooled by the Star Fox skin. What is left, if that were all shed?

Dude, I'm sorry... If you haven't played the game than your claim that "StarFox Zero is not a big step for the StarFox series" is... undeniably weightless.

As someone who's actually been playing the game since its release, let me attempt to ease your concerns a bit... StarFox Zero is actually $49.99 digitally and is only $60 with Guard added to the package. And I can honestly say that this is indeed no $20 experience. Now, if you wish to view the deceptively negative comments some reviewers have made about the game as if it's gospel, than that's your choice. Just understand you are possibly missing out on the best StarFox game ever released. And yes, I believe it is quite superior to 64. Playing 64 now feels limiting and simple in comparison to the gameplay depth offered by what Gamepad brings to the table. Any Star Fox game made in the future that doesn't include Zero's gameplay advancements would be a regretful step back.

The intense feeling of piloting an aircraft in a 3D game has never felt this immersive.... It's never been done like this and there is no game to compare this to. It has to be experienced in order to be judged.

Dude, I encourage you to get a GameFly subscription for a month and rent the game. I'm telling you from experience... I'm playing this on a 65" LED TV and this game is very polished. I haven't even finished unlocking all of the hidden routes but I can say with 100% certainty that any negative claims aimed towards the length of this game are unfounded. Whoever made this claim did not play the game in its entirety and probably didn't even beat the game. The level designs and missions are varied and were obviously aimed at satisfying fans of the series.

But in all seriousness, if you are truly a Wii U owner... games like Zero are the reasons you bought the system!

Doesn't match up to its predecessors? Are you kidding me? Out of all of the comments bashing Zero... this is probably among the most ridiculous one I've read... After playing this game, I still can't conceive how anyone who still hasn't played it can dismiss it like Zero is some second-rate , half-assed effort, Star Fox 64 imposter. If you think this is simply StarFox 64 with two screens, you should avoid commenting about games you never played in future.

I feel the same. The game's simply amazing and features an enhanced control scheme over previous games in the series. I swear, I adjusted to this games controls in 5 minutes. The difficulty isn't with the controls, it's with people's preconceived notions of how they think the controls should be. Part of the problem is the game industry's over-saturation of 1st-3rd shooters using twin stick analogs for movement and aiming.

I agree Nintendo could've afforded additional control schemes but they could only work when operating the Arwing/Walker and Landmaster/Gravmaster. There is no way traditional controls could work with the Gyrowing (for those who don't know - the Gyrowing features the same exact controls as Samus's ship from Nintendoland's Metroid Blast minigame). My guess is that the present control scheme was applied so both analogs would be reserved for handling vehicle movements only... which admittedly is sensible gameplay design.

If players want to shoot enemies down the way they did in older StarFox games they still can for most enemies since the aiming reticule will stay in front of your ship if you don't move the Gamepad. Naysayers are seriously overexaggerating!

@Turbo857It's not a perfect control scheme, but it's got it's advantages and disadvantages just like the old one. Traditionally you aimed with analog by steering your ship BUT your ship's steering was held hostage as you aimed.

All they did was allow the aiming to be further manipulated by gyro controls. And ya know what, it's fun. It's fun! And that's what games should be- FUN.

Now, I do rather dislike using the right analog for a barrel roll- I wish that was mapped to a button. But that's a separate gripe from this controversy. And it's not horrible- it's just not ideal.

The game itself mostly is just Star Fox 64. But not totally. There are a number of changes and additions (new stages, bosses, alternate routes, vehicles, etc) that, when coupled with a gyro-enhanced control scheme makes it feel like a fresh experience. Familiar yet fresh at the same time.

I was just playing StarFox 64 3D a few months ago, and Zero doesn't really feel like I'm playing the same game.

Idk. Take that for what it's worth. Even if it is just one man's opinion who's played the game.

EDIT
Basically what I'm saying is, for being mostly the same game Nintendo has done a pretty good job of making it feel like a new one.

I might actually love the controls if you mentioned Splatoon as being odd at first. I tried playing Splatoon in dojo mode with just the sticks and it was horrible. Like a dumbed down app version of game. I didn't feel immersed. Not for one second. Motion controls used right are some of the best experience's i've ever had playing games.

I've taken off work today (yes on a Tuesday) to spend some quality time with Fox McCloud (and really with my baby baby ) . I'm really enjoying the game, although the motion controls really are distracting at times. I have a feeling that this game is one that people will adjust to the control scheme, then once the game gets cast aside after a few weeks, will forget how to play. Then 10 years from now when its dug out again, people will suck again at controlling the game. Its really sad. I pulled out my Starfox 64 (N64 version) last year, and I was able to do a decent play through to come within 10% of my all-time top score. For Star Fox Zero, the controls are going to need relearned after an extended break.

Nintendo probably could shoe-horn in the N64 control scheme through an update if enough people complain - I don't think there are any sections that require the precision of motion controls. This game was treated like the Wii U's 2nd to last baby (Zelda Wii U will be the last), and its only getting 7 of 10 type reviews...and the average on amazon review is only 3.5 of 5. Maybe the controls will get addressed ?

@Mbrogz3000 You sound sincere. Just one thing, this is not Wii U's second last baby because I believe Zelda U will be released on NX, too, like Twilight Princess was first released on Wii and one week later or so on GameCube.

@Turbo857 My friend, not only do I have a Wii U but a New 3DS, and before that a 3DS XL, and before it, a 3DS. I also had the GBC, original GBA and GBA SP, and DS, DS Lite and DSi (oh heaven I was such a sucker LOL). I have all Nintendo consoles from SNES to Wii U, excluding Virtual Boy that was not even released in this continent. Star Fox Zero does not seduce me at all, and the more I see and read, the less appeal.

You are right, I could probably end up getting used to the controls, but I don't think it's really worth it for a short game that is so similar to Star Fox 64 (according to Nintendo Life's review) and has some other issues (also admitted here). I prefer sticking to Star Fox 64 3D, that I still enjoy quite much and has great controls and pretty amazing and smooth 3D effect that is better than many other 3DS games'.

If Nintendo really wants those disappointed fans to try Star Fox Zero, it's as easy as to release a demo, nobody is stopping them.

@Turbo857 You're right, SF Zero is not SF64 with two screens. It's Lair (old PS3 game with forced Six Axis motion controls) with two screens and a Star Fox (64) skin. That's not to say Star Fox Lair is bad, it's just not great like it's SNES and N64/3DS predecessors were.

WARNING only 3 hours game for 60 dollars. GRAPHICS are disaster for 2016 check withcher check ADRIFT for ps4 check raise of tomb raider just open your eyes ...what is innovative here 1999 graphics for 2016 this is innovation. this game is rushed to make money fast but with super bad quality

Weightless to you perhaps but not to me. I researched the game extensively before coming to the conclusion that I have. It looks low budget, the controls are a massive entry barrier that the majority agree take a great deal of getting used to, the game is essentially a retread of SF64, which in of itself was a retread of Starfox on SNES, and lastly, it hasn't had the best reputation among people who have played it.You act like people are all in agreement that it's good when the fact is, there's a lot of mixed opinions about the game. As I said, if a game looks bad to me from the start, I can't justify buying it. The fact NIntendo doesn't release a demo doesn't help ether. That said, I wasn't aware of the price being 49.99, but even then it still doesn't seem worth the price point just to play Starfox 64 with gimmicky controls. It's a little late to try and utilize the gamepad in a meaningful way and try to convince the fanbase that it's good. If nothing else, I'm waiting for the firestorm to relax a bit and when the smoke clears, we'll truly find out how the game has held up.

The "You haven't played it thus have no opinion" crowd need to step back and realize what they're saying. Reviews and videos exist for a reason. I don't trust reviews so I look at videos and I've seen enough of it to know where I stand. I may be still on the fence but my opinion is not weightless to me. Starting off a post with "You have no opinion" really doesn't help your case, either. Plenty of people who HAVE played it share my sentiment. The word of mouth hasn't been spotless and the majority of the people in this discussion alone who claim it's good are the usual suspects who claim EVERYTHING Nintendo dumps out is good.

The way I see it, there's no harm in waiting. Good things come to those who wait after all!

Help my case, lol seriously? You can't make definitive judgements on gameplay (with quotes "this isn't a big step for the series")... for a game you haven't played. Period, this isn't debatable. Just like I can't say that hamburger was delicious... when I never tasted it. Or that movie sucks, when I never see it. Case closed.

Look, if you wish to be cautious with your purchase for reasons you stated, no one’s gonna knock ya for it. You can do what you want with your hard earned cash. If you trust a YouTube video stream on a PC monitor over what you can see on a large HD television… I can't stop ya (nor would I try to). If you choose to trust the judgements of negative reviewers from big game sites, who’re known for taking bribes in exchange for good review scores, when they are bashing games from a company that doesn’t bribe for scores… that’s your choice.

I only take issue with a person's opinion when they display biased. And it's very easy to display bias in an opinion when your opinion is comprised of other opinions (or even gameplay footage from video streams without yet seeing it run on your TV).

All I can do is lead horses to water... whether they decide to drink it is up to them. If they believe the water I lead them to is Kool Aid then the problem is with their perception which I think is Star Fox Zero's main problem... It's controls are fine because they are after all learnable (took me 5 minutes)... but they betray gamers first initial instincts surrounding what they believe the controls should be... and I believe they're reacting harshly because of this betrayal. Which is unfair to the game.

Not really, considering I've watched videos, spoken with friends who played it, etc.. Opinions are subjective and can be formed using any criteria the thinker deems possible. You nor anyone else can say otherwise to that. If I think a game does not appeal to me and looks crap, I will say it as I please. I even gave my reasoning for it (largely of which you ignored and didn't address). I also never said I listened to those reviews, in fact on one of the articles (Perhaps even this one), I plainly stated the same exact tthing as you, so where you're getting that from is beyond me.

And no, you're not helping your cause because people like you are PRECISELY what I'm talking about. People who consistently put down the opinions of others and use buzzwords like "weightless" to further your point, ignoring the fact that it's my opinion and I came to my conclusion via critical thinking. I'm not going to explain my reasoning a second time. I never displayed a bias at any point, you're confusing me with Kirk. You also ignored what I said about the game not having very good word of mouth. As a general rule of thumb when a large gathering of people say something isn't very good, it usually isn't.

A friend of mine were just talking about this game the other day and the consensus was agreed upon EVEN BY SOMEONE WHO PLAYED THE GAME! The game is not very good. It's largely inferior to Starfox 64 (which many felt was already inferior to the SNES game). It's missing two of the best levels from Starfox 64, it largely lacks bonus objectives and routes like the N64 game, the graphics and level design look uninspired, etc etc etc..

The only thing you're right about are the controls. I can't say the controls are bad, but what I can say is the a great number of people (perhaps even the majority AND THIS VERY REVIEW WHICH THE ARTICLE WE ARE COMMENTING ON) agree that the controls are a barrier to the game.

Defenders of this game are wasting their time by defending it. Just let it go. As I said I plan to get it eventually, and considering that most of my friends (whom I am going to trust over random people whom I don't know) all agree this is a 15-20 dollar game at best.

As Peppy would say... "Never give up! Trust your instincts!". And my instincts tell me this game is not worth the price. It's subpar. I've rarely been wrong about these sort of things because I do not have knee-jerk reactions. I research, question, and form a conclusion. When a large group of people consistently complain about the same thing, that's usually a good indication that there is a problem with said thing. While the controls are what people usually complain about, it has way other problems, some of which are far bigger. The words of fanboys means little to me. I swear some of you people work for Nintendo or something! "Go buy it RIGHT NOW OMG IT IS SOOOO GOOD!" Yeaaah. No. I'm gonna pass if that's alright with the Nintendo Defense Squad. I'll buy a Nintendo game when it doesn't look like crap and hasn't had the localization hacksaw taken to it.

People like me, huh? Oh man, oh man... I must say, you're quite the entertainer @onion

First off, you shouldn't be disrespecting the author of this article and my fellow commenters by using this Comments section as a substitute for your scheduled therapy sessions. If you stuck with the main point of my critique, you would've saved time by cutting your response back about 4 needless paragraphs. I didn't address some of the details in your previous comments because I "actually agreed" with some of them. I mainly took issue with "one" of your statements ("This isn't a big leap for Star Fox"). Most of my additional rhetoric was semi-hypothetical. I'll give you credit though, most of the other naysayers who didn't play Zero... didn't do that much research to formulate their opinions.

However, even in your latest response you described that your "consensus" only involved just one single person who actually played the game (for me that wouldn't be enough to make up an opinion but "to each their own"). So, I'm no longer going to comment on the criteria you use to formulate an opinion about games since it's obvious (just from reading your comments) that said criteria is "a bit lacking".

But whatever, some of y'all can keep playing the inferior Star Fox 64 and the rest of us who gave this game a chance will simply continue to enjoy and replay Zero.

I'm so disappointed with StarFox Zero controls, been a huge StarFox fan for years. I just don't understand why Nintendo has to reinvent the wheel when it come to StarFox games, StarFox Command and StarFox Zero both had needless and unnecessary control layouts. Shifting my sight from Gamepad to TV while using motion controls in SFZ is down right tedious.

Hmm... Not sure if you tried this but you don't have to look at the Gamepad (or TV) if you don't want to. You can just focus on the TV (or just the Gamepad) and switch perspectives (as you need to) with the minus (-) button.

At first I thought off-TV play with this game wasn't possible but low and behold that minus button can be used as a substitute for players who don't wanna look at 2 screens.

Problem with that argument is that the same thing is being supported by people who HAVE played it, a convenient fact that some of you are consistently overlooking. The people who defend this game have a real problem with paying attention, as this discussion alone has had multiple people come in and say "yeah I'm kinda disappointed by the game.", forum posts, etc etc. I don't know how much plainer I can make it. People who haven't played it are being backed up by people who have. Case closed. And I think I'll stay, since last I checked, all opinions were welcomed. Although you're right to say that the multiplayer element is largely ignored, I think it may be overshadowed by the lack of online play. I can't comment on the coop bit, but a Starfox game with coop play is pretty interesting!

The big leap thing cannot be disputed. Period. It's literally Star Fox 64 with some tacked on controls, walker sections, missing levels, etc.. Take any other video game franchise (such as Dark Souls) and pull this crap. The response would be comedic. Apparently only Starfox (And Nintendo by association) are allowed to completely rehash a rehash. Impressive when it comes right down to it. So yes, I'm saying it's not a big leap. it's a small hop. Had this been an entirely new game, perhaps I wouldn't feel that way.

Also I have no idea where therapy sessions or you mockery of consensus came from. Where did that even come from? As I said above (and once again) supporters of this game continue to overlook forum posts, posts in this very topic, etc. that basically say "This game is kinda crappy.". Not to mention as I've pointed out, numerous friends (this is plural, please try to pay attention) are basically saying the same thing. In my original statement I did say friend (not friends) because I was only citing one specific instance. Even if it were just one friend, I'd be a fool to take the word of some random internet fanboy over the word of a friend I've known for years and is actually capable of thinking objectively. As I said (and went ignored), the game has relatively poor word of mouth right now across MULTIPLE venues and it's very mixed. Other people have even linked forum topics about how mixed the opinions of this game are, so there's not a whole lot left for me to say.

So my opinion is weightless to you, your opinion is even more weightless to me.

EDIT: Looking back at my own post, I DID point out that it was friends as in plural, so I guess that confirms that I'm dealing with someone who can't read very well.

Lol wow, you're really losing me here. At first I thought our little debate was interesting. Exchanging views with fellow gamers with different opinions can often times be stimulating. But now, you're starting to get down right delusional.

These are your words (hint: Pay close attention to the words in Caps) = "A friend of mine were just talking about this game the other day and the consensus was agreed upon EVEN BY "SOMEONE" WHO PLAYED THE GAME!"

Now, if you read that slowly and carefully any sane person would conclude that your consensus may have only involved just one person who "actually played the game". If you truly meant that your consensus included multiple people who actually played the game, then you either: #1. Misquoted or #2. English might not be your first language or #3. You're a liar. Regardless of the answer, you should pick one before continuing your argument especially if you expect anyone to respect your opinions.

You can't attempt to engage in a war of words with someone when you don't even understand the meaning behind the words you type.

But all this is besides the point. The problem here is you're grossly overstating the value of your "personal" opinion, @onion... Frankly, nobody cares. Nobody cares about what you choose to do with your money or how you formulated your opinion. This is a comment section... for a game review article. So if you haven't played the game like me, the author, and other commenters who have, you're opinion regarding Zero (especially at this point) is needlessly just taking up space.

Nobody is denying the mixed word-of-mouth Zero's received. I don't address it... because I just don't care. Gaming itself is inherently subjective. Why should I (or anyone who's played Zero and love it) feel the need to acknowledge or address negative word-of-mouth on a game that's already won them over? I've beaten every Star Fox game. I've just beaten Star Fox 64 3D this morning again and to me, Zero is the best in the series... hands down.

Now, this random internet fanboy's opinion is just here for those on the fence. If it doesn't sway you or anybody else, that's fine with me... it's yours and their loss. I won't be losing any sleep over it. And speaking of sleep, I suggest you get some yourself.

Since I know you struggle with reading comprehension, the word you're looking for here is "friends". While we're at it, "friends who played it". Try to keep up. Next is...

"As I said I plan to get it eventually, and considering that most of my friends (whom I am going to trust over random people whom I don't know) all agree this is a 15-20 dollar game at best."

Again, there's a plural here that indicates more than one person. I'm kinda surprised I have to actually explain this. I know reading is hard but you can do it! I already explained once before that I was citing ONE discussion and thus one person in that context. Keeping up so far? Good. That is why in that instance, I only cited one person. Now if you really want to hear every single discussion I had with friends (both online and off) then I'd be happy to oblige but at that point, we would be becoming a bit obsessive.

As for nobody cares, I wasn't aware you could speak for anyone but yourself but that's interesting to know. If no one truly cares, why are we having this discussion? Also I'm curious as to where it states in the rulebook that one MUST play the game in order to comment? I looked over the Community Rules and the strangest thing... I didn't see anywhere in the rules where having played the game is mandatory. Can you point it out to me? (I am well aware that you never said otherwise, I'm just making a point here that ALL opinions are welcomed by the Nintendolife community, despite what fanboys like to believe) I already explained my reasoning and if you're unable to grasp it, there's nothing else for me to do. Whether or not I've played the game has little to do with the follow facts...

1: It's a rehash. A remake. A recycled game of a game that was already recycled.

2: it's divisive. For every person who seems to like it, there's one who seems to hate it.

4: It has no online play (that I know of, I don't really care but lots of people do) and quite short.

5: The graphics are subpar and the level design uninspired. Considering Starfox is a series known for cutting edge visuals, I'm not seeing it here.

6: The control scheme is an entry barrier. The very review in which are commenting on alludes to this fact by saying it takes quite a while to adjust. That's not a very intuitive control scheme for a game that previously did fine with simple analog controls. The controls may very well be amazing, but they're still a barrier. They will get in the way of the game for most people. The ones who claimed to have gotten the hang of them in 5 minutes seem to be a minority. Either way, when controls get in the way of a game to this extent, it's never a good sign. You don't see too many franchises have heated debates like this over controls.

7. There's no demo to speak of. This is a massive blow to the game and most likely deliberate on Nintendo's part because they know many people will be frustrated by the controls. They likely wanted this to be an impulse buy.

There's more, but I will leave it at that for now since you're not going to read half of it, ignore it, and then probably continue to be insulting and condescending towards someone with a different opinion from your own. My having played the game does not magically change these facts, they're still there. My playing the game has no bearing on the fact. You really don't have much of an argument here, which is further proven by your constant attitude.

So you like the game. That's great, really it is. Lots of people don't. I know that I most likely won't either just by the impressions I've gotten. Why is this discussion still persisting? Am I that offensive to you? Speaking of losing sleep, you're right. I've been sitting here pretty much since the start of this discussion. Will you tuck me in?

Thanks, I'll keep this in mind. I haven't heard anyone really talk about the co-op all that much, so I may give that element of the game a try. A lot of the game still sounds unappealing to me, but I've always been curious for co-op in Starfox. Given the game's emphasis on squad-based combat, you have to wonder why it's never been attempted before.